Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_04-cv-00404/USCOURTS-alsd-1_04-cv-00404-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CARLOS BYTHER, *

 *

Plaintiff, *

 *

vs. * CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-0404-CG-B

 *

CITY OF MOBILE, et al. *

 *

Defendants. *

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion For

Order Permitting Audio Recording At Defense Medical Examination

(Doc. 79). In his motion, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants

have arranged for Plaintiff to undergo a mental examination by

psychologist, Dr. Kirkland, on May 11, 2005, and that because of

Plaintiff’s memory problems, a third party should be permitted

to attend the examination in order to protect Plaintiff’s Fifth

Amendment privilege, or in the alternative, the examination be

audio recorded. Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion, and argue

that Plaintiff was examined by his expert without a third party

in attendance and without audio recording, and that Defendants

are entitled to have Plaintiff examined under the same

conditions. The undersigned conducted a telephone conference on

May 10, 2005 at which time counsel for the parties were given an

opportunity to present their respective positions. 

Based on the information offered by the parties, and a

Case 1:04-cv-00404-CG-B Document 80 Filed 05/10/05 Page 1 of 4
2

review of the relevant case law, the undersigned DENIES

Plaintiff’s motion. Although Rule 35 is silent on the question

of who may attend an examination, “such examinations, like all

other forms of discovery, are subject to the general provision

of Rule 26(c) that the court ‘may make any order which justice

requires to protect a party or person from annoyance,

embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.’” Bethel

v. Dixie Homecrafters, Inc., 192 F.R.D. 320, 323 (N.D. Ga. 2000)

(citations omitted). The party seeking the protection of Rule

26(c) has the burden of establishing the need for special

conditions. Id. at 324. 

In Shirsat v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc., 169 F.R.D.

68, 70 (E.D. Pa. 1996), the court refused a plaintiff’s request

for an independent observer during an examination, and held that

“an observer, court reporter, or recording device, would

constitute a distraction during the examination and work to

diminish the accuracy of the process.” According to the court,

“the presence of the observer interjects an adversarial,

partisan atmosphere into what should be otherwise a wholly

objective inquiry[,]...[and that] it is recognized that

psychological examinations necessitate an unimpeded, one-on-one

exchange between the doctor and the patient.” Id. at 71

(citations omitted). 

Case 1:04-cv-00404-CG-B Document 80 Filed 05/10/05 Page 2 of 4
3

In the case sub judice, Plaintiff herein has failed to

establish the need for special conditions, such as audio taping,

during Dr. Kirkland’s examination. As the undersigned noted

during today’s conference, all of the parties agree that

Plaintiff has no memory of the events that led to his injury.

Since Plaintiff does not have any first hand knowledge of the

events that led to his injury, there is no risk that he will

offer information in this regard that could implicate him.

Moreover, the evidence is uncontroverted that Plaintiff

underwent a mental examination by one of his medical experts,

Dr. Rosen, and that this examination was conducted without the

intrusion of an observer or a recording. Further, Plaintiff has

not offered any evidence that demonstrates that he will somehow

be prejudiced or placed at a disadvantage if not allowed to

record Dr. Kirkland’s examination. While Plaintiff’s counsel

allege that due to Plaintiff’s memory loss, they will not be

able to effectively cross-examine Dr. Kirkland without a

recording, the undersigned fails to see how that situation is

any different from Defendants’ position with respect to their

cross-examination of Dr. Rosen, who was able to conduct his

examination without the intrusion of an observer or a recording.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s

motion is DENIED.

Case 1:04-cv-00404-CG-B Document 80 Filed 05/10/05 Page 3 of 4
4

DONE this 10th day of May, 2005.

s/SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-00404-CG-B Document 80 Filed 05/10/05 Page 4 of 4