Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00468/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00468-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Civil Remedies: Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

1

16-cv-0468-WQH-AGS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Ashwin KHOBRAGADE,

Plaintiff,

v.

COVIDIEN LP,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16-cv-0468-WQH-AGS

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED 

MOTION FOR A RULE 35 MENTAL 

EXAMINATION (ECF No. 26)

Defendant’s motion for a Rule 35 mental examination (ECF No. 26) is granted.

Plaintiff did not oppose the motion. Under Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c, if a party fails to file 

an opposition, “that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion.” But even 

considering the merits of defendant’s motion, the Court finds good cause to order the 

examination. 

A court “may order a party whose mental or physical condition . . . is in controversy 

to submit to a physical or mental examination by a certified examiner.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 35(a); Nguyen v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 09-1925-MMA (WCG), 2013 WL 3353840, at *2

(S.D. Cal. July 3, 2013) (“The moving party has the burden to show that the condition for 

which examination is sought is ‘in controversy’ and there exists ‘good cause’ for the 

examination.” (citation omitted)). 

Plaintiff’s mental condition is in controversy because plaintiff alleges severe 

emotional distress in his complaint. (See, e.g., Pl.’s Compl., ECF No. 1, at ¶¶ 54, 63, 66, 

Case 3:16-cv-00468-WQH-AGS Document 36 Filed 03/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

16-cv-0468-WQH-AGS

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

77, 82, 86, 88, 90, 93, 94, 95, 105.) Defendant has shown good cause because it alleges 

that plaintiff had several episodes throughout his life suggesting he suffers from 

psychological issues, which strain the causal relationship between defendant’s alleged 

conduct and plaintiff’s alleged emotional distress. (See Pl.’s Dep., ECF No. 26-2, at 5-27.)

According to defendant, plaintiff objected because the examination would be 

performed by defendant’s expert who, by plaintiff’s standards, is not an “independent”

medical examiner. (See ECF No. 26-1, at 9-10.) Rule 35 does not require that the examiner 

be uninterested: the proposed examiner need only be “suitably licensed or certified.” Redon 

v. Ruiz, No. 13cv1765-WQH(KSC), 2015 WL 13238642, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2015).

“Although the Court is not required to accept defendants’ proposed examiner as the 

examining psychologist, only if plaintiff raises a valid objection will the Court appoint a

different examiner.” Ragge v. MCA/Universal Studios, 165 F.R.D. 605, 609 (C.D. Cal. 

1995) (citation omitted). Plaintiff has made no such showing, and in any event, plaintiff 

will have the opportunity to impeach the expert’s opinions at trial with any evidence of 

bias.

Accordingly, the Court grants defendant’s motion to compel a Rule 35 examination.

To allow sufficient time to implement this order, the Court extends the deadline to 

supplement expert reports to April 20, 2018. All the other dates and provisions in the

scheduling order (ECF No. 22) remain unchanged.

Dated: March 27, 2018

Case 3:16-cv-00468-WQH-AGS Document 36 Filed 03/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2