Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04277/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04277-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESSICA L LOPEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-04277-SI (JSC)

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT'S REQUEST 

FOR INDEPENDENT MEDICAL 

EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF

Re: Dkt. Nos. 33, 36, 38

This matter has been referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for resolution of 

discovery disputes between the parties. (Dkt. No. 32.) Now before the Court is Defendant 

Marriott Hotel Services, Inc.’s request to conduct an independent medical examination (“IME”) of 

Plaintiff Jessica Lopez pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35. (Dkt. No. 33.) The Court 

held a hearing on August 17, 2016, during which the Court ordered that Plaintiff shall be made 

available for an IME for seven hours total at a single location. The parties thereafter submitted

additional briefing on the proper scope of the IME. (Dkt. Nos. 36, 38.) Having considered the 

arguments and briefing submitted, the Court, finding good cause shown, GRANTS Defendant’s 

request and ORDERS Plaintiff to be made available for an IME consistent with this Order.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35(a), when the mental or physical condition of a 

party is in controversy, a court may, upon a motion for good cause, order the party to submit to a 

physical or mental examination by a suitably licensed or certified examiner. Because Plaintiff 

alleges that she suffered extreme emotional distress in this case, there is no dispute that her mental 

condition is in controversy and that she is therefore subject to some form of IME pursuant to Rule 

35(a). (See Dkt. No. 37 at 2-3 (“The parties agreed that an IME of Plaintiff is warranted given her 

allegations of ‘non-garden variety’ emotional distress.”). The parties disagree, however, whether 

Case 3:15-cv-04277-SI Document 40 Filed 09/08/16 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the tests that Defendant proposes for Plaintiff’s IME are necessary and proper in this case. 

Defendant requests that its experts, Dr. William Hooker and Dr. John Zeitz, be permitted 

to perform four tests at Plaintiff’s IME: (1) Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Fourth Edition 

(WAIS-IV); (2) Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory – Second Edition (MMPI-2); (3) 

Rorschach Performance Appraisal System (R-PAS); and (4) Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory 

(MCMI). (Dkt. No. 38 at 3.) In support of this request, Defendant has submitted a declaration 

from Dr. Hooker explaining the relevance and utility of each of the above tests. (See Dkt. No. 

38-1 ¶¶ 13-16.) Defendant further notes that Dr. Hooker was previously granted permission by a 

court in this District under Rule 35 to perform an earlier version of the WAIS test (3rd edition) as 

well as the Rorscharch test. See Ayat v. Societe Air France, No. C 06-1574 JSW JL, 2007 WL 

1120358 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2007). In response, Plaintiff argues that the tests Defendant proposes 

are too intrusive for purposes of this litigation and requests that the Court limit the areas that

Defendant’s experts may explore. (See Dkt. No. 36 at 4.) 

While the Court is sensitive to Plaintiff’s privacy concerns, she does not provide any case 

law or supporting expert declaration explaining why the requested tests are unnecessarily intrusive

or otherwise inappropriate. To the contrary, “[t]hese are all standard tests that have been found by 

numerous courts, including those in the Northern District, to be proper tools for psychological 

assessment.” Ashley v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, No. CV-12-00045-JST KAW, 2013 WL 

2386655, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2013). Moreover, the Court is satisfied that Defendant’s 

experts, both of whom appear to be well qualified, will conduct themselves in a professional 

manner and will not subject Plaintiff to unnecessary inquiries. Absent any evidence to the 

contrary, the Court declines to micromanage how Defendant chooses to utilize its seven hours. 

See Gavin v. Hilton Worldwide, Inc., 291 F.R.D. 161, 166-67 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (“The court 

expects the examiner will act professionally and not subject Gavin to unnecessary inquiries. It 

will not micromanage the examination.”). 

Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant has established good cause for its experts to 

perform the four requested tests. The Court therefore ORDERS that Plaintiff shall be made 

available for an IME on a single day for up to seven hours. Plaintiff may be examined by both of 

Case 3:15-cv-04277-SI Document 40 Filed 09/08/16 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Defendant’s experts, Dr. Hooker and Dr. Zeitz, but such examination must take place at one 

location—that is, Plaintiff is not required to travel to another location for further examination. 

Defendant’s experts shall be permitted to perform the following tests: (1) Wechsler Intelligence 

Scale – Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV); (2) Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory – Second 

Edition (MMPI-2); (3) Rorschach Performance Appraisal System (R-PAS); and (4) Millon 

Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI). Finally, only Dr. Hooker, Dr. Zeitz, and Plaintiff shall be 

present during the IME. See, e.g., Hanna v. Fresno Cty., No. 14-CV-00142-LJO-SKO, 2015 WL 

7458691, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2015) (noting that “a Rule 35 examination should be divested 

as far as possible of any adversary character, and the presence of an attorney at the examination 

injects a partisan element into what should otherwise be an objective medical inquiry”) (citation 

omitted); Ayat, 2007 WL 1120358, at *8 (excluding third party witnesses from examination 

because they “may, regardless of their good intentions, contaminate a mental examination”) 

(citation and internal quotations omitted).

This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 33, 36, and 38. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 8, 2016

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-04277-SI Document 40 Filed 09/08/16 Page 3 of 3