Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04760/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04760-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

DORIS M. MAYS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN POTTER, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-06-4760 EMC

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S

INDEPENDENT MEDICAL

EXAMINATION

(Docket Nos. 39-41)

Having considered the parties’ respective letters as well as the oral argument of counsel at

the expedited telephonic hearing, the Court hereby orders that Defendant shall be permitted to take a

psychiatric independent medical examination of Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s discovery responses indicate

that she plans to offer expert testimony to support her claim that she suffered emotional distress. See

Docket No. 40. This opens the door to an IME. See Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 116-19

(1964) (noting that, under Rule 35, a party may be subject to a physical or mental examination if the

party’s physical or mental condition is in controversy and good cause is shown for the examination);

see also Turner v. Imperial Stores, 161 F.R.D. 89, 95 (S.D. Cal. 1995) (noting that “courts will order

plaintiffs to undergo mental examinations where the cases involve, in addition to a claim of

emotional distress, one or more of the following: 1) a cause of action for intentional or negligent

infliction of emotional distress; 2) an allegation of a specific mental or psychiatric injury or disorder;

3) a claim of unusually severe emotional distress; 4) plaintiff’s offer of expert testimony to support a

claim of emotional distress; and/or 5) plaintiff’s concession that his or her mental

///

Case 3:06-cv-04760-EMC Document 42 Filed 11/15/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

condition is ‘in controversy’ within the meaning of Rule 35(a)”).

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 39-41.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2007

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04760-EMC Document 42 Filed 11/15/07 Page 2 of 2