Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05531/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05531-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAVON JONES JR., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

BAYER CORPORATION, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 03-05531 JSW

SECOND ORDER RE

DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE

INDEPENDENT MEDICAL

EXAMINATION

The Court has received the parties’ joint letter brief dated July 27, 2006, outlining their

second discovery dispute regarding Plaintiff’s Independent Medical Examination (“IME”). The

Court requires further submissions from Plaintiff in order to resolve the issue.

On March 29, 2006, this Court, presented with Plaintiff’s failure to cooperate with the

first session of the IME, ordered Plaintiff to submit to a further session with Defendant’s

medical examiner, Dr. Randall B. Smith. The Court found, and again reiterates, that there is no

dispute between the parties that Plaintiff’s mental condition is in controversy. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 35(a). Plaintiff’s failure fully to cooperate in the administration of the IME would result in

impeding Bayer’s right to defend itself against the claims for emotional distress. 

Again, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff has not been fully cooperative in his submission

to the IME. Defendant alleges, as does Dr. Smith, that Plaintiff deliberately attempted to 

invalidate the test results by falsifying his answers and therefore has willfully disobeyed this

Court’s discovery orders. Dr. Smith concludes that, based on the particular configuration of

examination results and the presentation of Plaintiff in both his sworn deposition and his 

Case 3:03-cv-05531-JSW Document 123 Filed 08/02/06 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

interviews with the doctor, Plaintiff has been deliberately uncooperative during testing and has

consciously and systematically misrepresented his cognitive and functional abilities in an active

effort to exaggerate his purported deficits. 

Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Robert L. Kaufman, opines that although “the configuration of

[test results] is quite unusual, [it] does not necessarily point to malingering, ... but could be due

to an unusually high level of emotional distress or the embellishment of existing distress and

symptoms.” In Plaintiff’s counsel’s portion of the joint letter brief, counsel represents that

Plaintiff “has stated to counsel unequivocally that he did not falsify answer, but answered to the

best of his knowledge, understanding, and ability.” (Joint letter at 3.) 

In order to assess whether Plaintiff has violated this Court’s orders requiring full

cooperation with the independent examination by Dr. Smith, the Court requires further

submissions from Plaintiff. By no later than August 11, 2006, Plaintiff shall submit a sworn

declaration attesting to the veracity of his conduct at the April 25, 2006 visit with Dr. Smith. 

The declaration shall include an explanation of whether Plaintiff has fully complied with this

Court’s previous orders requiring him to submit truthfully and cooperatively with the

independent medical examination. If Plaintiff has secured a mental health expert, such expert

shall also submit a sworn declaration by no later than August 11, 2006 regarding his or her

opinion as to the veracity of Plaintiff’s representations on the cognitive and psychological tests

and procedures performed by Dr. Smith. In opining as to Plaintiff’s conduct, such expert, if

any, must take into account the full record of discovery in this matter, including the deposition

taken of Plaintiff.

Once the Court has received the supplemental submissions, it will issue a final order

regarding the parties’ outstanding discovery dispute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-05531-JSW Document 123 Filed 08/02/06 Page 2 of 2