Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02240/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02240-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Latisha Anderson,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Arizona PRN LLC, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-02240-PHX-ESW

ORDER 

Pending before the Court are (i) Defendant’s “Motion to Compel Medical 

Examination and Functional Skills Assessment by Defendant’s Expert” (Doc. 74) and (ii) 

Plaintiff’s Request for Protective Order (Doc. 75). Oral argument has been requested. 

After reviewing the parties’ briefing (Docs. 74, 75, and 78), oral argument is deemed 

unnecessary for consideration of the issues pending before the Court. The request for 

oral argument is denied. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff has filed a First Amended Complaint alleging (i) discrimination pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C.§ 12101 et seq., (ii) discrimination pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1463 

et seq,, (iii) breach of fiduciary duty, and (iv) negligence. (Doc. 24). Defendants have 

answered. (Docs. 26, 27). The Court dismissed Defendant Arizona PRN, LLC with 

prejudice from the action. (Doc. 61). All issues are joined. The Court has jurisdiction 

Case 2:14-cv-02240-ESW Document 82 Filed 02/04/16 Page 1 of 6
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 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§§ 1331, 1343, 2201, 2202, and 1367. The parties have consented 

to the exercise of Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (Doc. 22). 

Plaintiff is a registered nurse, confined to a wheelchair due to a physical disability.

She is a resident of North Carolina. Plaintiff alleges that she was offered and accepted a 

thirteen week temporary nursing position with Haven Senior Horizons of Phoenix, 

Arizona. Plaintiff claims that Defendant wrongfully terminated her on the basis of her 

disability. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is not capable of performing the essential 

duties of the Behavioral Health Technician job for which she applied, either with or 

without reasonable accommodations. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff is not a qualified 

individual under the Americans with Disability Act (“ADA”) or the Arizonans with 

Disabilities Act (“AzDA”) and her claims are without merit. 

On February 20, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Rule 26(f) Case Management 

Report pursuant to Rules 16 and 26, Fed. R. Civ. P. The Court thereafter issued its 

Scheduling Order. (Doc.31). By stipulation of the parties or motion, the Court has 

extended discovery deadlines five times. (Docs. 36, 42, 57, 70, 72). The discovery 

deadline in this case is April 5, 2016. (Doc. 70 at 1). By Joint Stipulation to Extend Rule 

16 Deadlines (Doc. 69) filed on Nov. 23, 2015, the parties stated that they had “agreed 

that Plaintiff’s independent medical examination will be conducted within a day or two 

after mediation concludes. The parties have so agreed in order to minimize the burdens 

and expenses of travel for Plaintiff in recognition of her condition.” On the basis of the 

parties’ avowals, the Court granted an extension of the scheduling deadlines. Plaintiff 

now asserts that she has a new job in North Carolina, has health issues, and wants her 

independent medical examination (“IME”) to be conducted in North Carolina, 

presumably at the expense of Defendant. Plaintiff also requests that mediation be 

conducted telephonically. Defendant seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to return to 

Arizona for her IME as previously stipulated. 

- 2 - 

Case 2:14-cv-02240-ESW Document 82 Filed 02/04/16 Page 2 of 6
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

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. IMEs

Rule 35(a)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., authorizes the court where an action is pending to 

order a party whose physical condition “is in controversy to submit to a physical or 

mental examination by a suitably licensed or certified examiner.” Rule 35 is permissive, 

not mandatory. See Mendoza v. Peoria, No. CV-13-258-PHX-NVW, 2013 WL 5705365, 

at *2 (D. Ariz. Oct. 21, 2013). Absent agreement of the parties, a party seeking an order 

pursuant to Rule 35 must file a motion showing “good cause” before an IME may be 

authorized with “notice to all parties and the person to be examined[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

35(a)(2)(A). An IME order “must specify the time, place, manner, conditions and scope 

of the examination, as well as the person or persons who will perform it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

35(a)(2)(B). The burden of proof is on the moving party to show that a person’s medical 

condition is in controversy and good cause exists for a physical examination. See Nava v. 

City of Shafter, No. 1:12–cv–00010–AWI–JLT, 2013 WL 5278890, at *1–2 (E.D. Cal. 

Sept. 18, 2013) (citing Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104 (1964)). “A 

plaintiff's physical condition is ‘in controversy’ when the condition is a subject of the 

litigation.” Id. (citing Haqq v. Stanford Hospital & Clinics, No. C 06-05444 JW (RS), 

2007 WL 1593224, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2007)) (citation omitted). “Good cause” 

generally requires a showing of specific facts justifying the exam. Id. Even if the 

moving party establishes both a physical condition in controversy and good cause, it is 

within the discretion of the court whether to order an IME. Storlie v. State Farm Mut. 

Auto. Ins. Co., No. 2:09–cv–02205–GMN–PAL, 2010 WL 3488982, at *4 (D. Nev. Aug 

31, 2010) (citing Hardy v. Riser, 309 F. Supp. 1234, 1241 (N.D. Miss. 1970)) (“Even 

when the ‘good cause’ and ‘in controversy’ requirements are met, it is still in the sound 

discretion of the trial court whether to order the examination”); Shirsat v. Mutual Pharm. 

Co., 169 F.R.D. 68, 70 (E.D. Pa. 1996)).

B. Protective Orders

Rule 26(c), Fed. R. Civ. P., provides that any person from whom discovery is 

- 3 -

Case 2:14-cv-02240-ESW Document 82 Filed 02/04/16 Page 3 of 6
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 

sought may seek a protective order in the court where the action is pending. “The court 

may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, 

embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). 

The moving party bears the burden of showing a particularized need for protection. See 

Fausto v. Credigy Services Corp., 251 F.R.D. 436, 437-38 (N.D. Cal. 2008). “Broad 

allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not 

satisy the Rule 26(c) test.” Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F. 2d 470, 476 (9th 

Cir. 1992) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

III. DISCUSSION

There is no dispute that Defendant is entitled to a Rule 35(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., 

physical examination and functional assessment of Plaintiff. Plaintiff has placed her 

physical condition and ability to perform the essential functions of a job at issue, and 

Plaintiff is a T-1 paraplegic who is confined to a wheelchair. This is a case for damages 

under the ADA and AzDA. Good cause exists for an IME to be performed pursuant to 

Rule 35 (a), Fed. R. Civ. P. See Mendoza, 2013 WL 5705365, at *2 (finding good cause 

exists for independent medical exam when plaintiff places his medical condition at issue). 

Plaintiff clearly has been on notice regarding the necessity of this examination since Nov. 

23, 2015. She previously agreed to the examination and is bound by her stipulation. 

Defendant need only provide the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the 

examination for the Court to issue its order. The Court in its sound discretion will order 

an IME. 

In addition, it is the general rule that the party being examined must pay her own 

travel expenses to the examination in the forum state. See McCloskey v. United Parcel

Service General Services Co., 171 F.R.D. 268, 270 (D. Or. 1997). Plaintiff has not 

proven that undue financial hardship exists to support Defendant “fronting” Plaintiff’s 

travel expenses, subject to reimbursement at the time of trial. See id. No authority has 

been cited, nor does authority exist, to support Plaintiff’s suggestion that Defendant’s 

- 4 - 

Case 2:14-cv-02240-ESW Document 82 Filed 02/04/16 Page 4 of 6
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 

chosen physician should be ordered to travel to North Carolina at Defendant’s expense to 

accomplish the IME. 

The Court further finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of proof for the 

issuance of a protective order pursuant to Rule 26(c), Fed. R. Civ. P. Plaintiff asserts that 

she is within a ninety day probationary period with her new employer and cannot miss 

any work without jeopardizing her position. Yet Plaintiff does not provide her date of 

hire for her job. Plaintiff further suggests that air travel is medically ill-advised. 

Nevertheless, Plaintiff fails to tell the Court why or attach any supporting medical

documentation proving that air travel is medically contraindicated. Plaintiff flew to 

Arizona for an interview with Defendant, as alleged in her First Amended Complaint. 

She flew to North Carolina for her current job. The Court has no basis upon which to 

conclude that Plaintiff cannot fly to Arizona for an IME and settlement conference. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, 

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant’s Motion to Compel Medical Examination 

and Functional Skills Assessment by Defendant’s Expert (Doc. 74). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Request for Protective Order 

(Doc. 75). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant provide the Court with a form of 

the order setting forth all the information required pursuant to Rule 35(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. 

Plaintiff shall travel to Arizona for an IME and settlement conference within sixty (60) 

days of the filing of this order at a date and time available for counsel, the settlement 

judge, and Defendant’s expert. Defendant’s expert report deadline is hereby extended to 

accommodate the scheduling of the IME. Defendant’s expert report shall be exchanged 

within thirty (30) days of the IME. Plaintiff’s rebuttal report shall be exchanged within 

thirty (30) days of receipt of the IME report. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED affirming the March 14, 2016 deadline for 

- 5 - 

Case 2:14-cv-02240-ESW Document 82 Filed 02/04/16 Page 5 of 6
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 

engaging in good faith settlement talks. (Doc. 70). Any requests for a settlement 

conference before a Magistrate Judge shall be filed by February 11, 2016. 

Dated this 4th day of February, 2016. 

- 6 - 

Case 2:14-cv-02240-ESW Document 82 Filed 02/04/16 Page 6 of 6