Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-01666/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-01666-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALICIA WAGNON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ROCKLIN U.S.D., et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:17–cv–1666–KJN

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

COMPEL IME

(ECF No. 39.)

Presently before the court is defendants’ motion to compel an independent medical 

examination under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35.1

 (ECF No. 39.) Defendants contend 

plaintiff From has put his mental condition at issue by claiming damages for the emotional, 

educational, and psychological injuries caused by defendants, and good cause exists for the IME. 

Plaintiffs do not appear to dispute that From’s mental condition is at issue, but instead cite a 

number of reasons why good cause is lacking, including the remoteness of the exam, the proposed 

locations, the lack of qualifications of the expert, and the availability of the information from 

other sources. (ECF No. 45.)

For the reasons stated at the hearing on August 30, 2022, the court GRANTS defendants’ 

motion and sets certain conditions for the exam, as described below.

1 This case proceeds before the undersigned on the consent of all parties to the jurisdiction of a 

magistrate judge per 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). (See ECF Nos. 23, 24.)

Case 2:17-cv-01666-CSK Document 47 Filed 08/31/22 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

2

Background

Plaintiffs allege that in 2016, a Rocklin U.S.D. bus driver created a hostile environment 

that resulted in bruising and emotional regression in plaintiff From’s education and mental health. 

Plaintiffs raise claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the 

Rehabilitation Act, and California law (Battery, Negligence, Negligent Supervision, Unruh and 

Bane Acts). Damages alleged include emotional distress, pain and suffering, and medical 

expenses. Plaintiff From has significant intellectual and physical disabilities, so his mother Alice

Wagnon acts as his conservator for this suit. (See ECF No. 1.)

Plaintiffs filed this case in 2017, and between 2017-2021, the court considered two rounds 

of defendants’ motions to dismiss before defendants filed an answer. (See ECF No. 23.) 

Thereafter, the parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge for all purposes and the 

case was reassigned. (ECF No. 24.) The undersigned entered a scheduling order setting the close 

of fact discovery for September 2, 2022, expert discovery for December 16, 2022, and law and 

motion for March 16, 2023. (ECF No. 28.)

During the course of discovery, plaintiff Wagnon’s responses to certain interrogatories 

identified 17 symptoms she said began after the bus driver’s alleged actions, and a 2017 report 

from plaintiffs’ psychological expert Dr. Baladerian cites these symptoms in her analysis. (See

ECF No. 39; see also ECF No. 41 at Ex. A and B and sealed event at ECF No. 44.) Based on 

these facts, defendants seek permission for their expert, psychiatrist Dr. Greene, to conduct an 

independent medical examination of From. (ECF No. 39.) Plaintiffs opposed, and the matter was 

set for an August 30, 2022 hearing before the undersigned. (Id.)

Legal Standards

Fed. R. Civ. P. 35 grants a party the ability to have a physical or mental examination 

conducted by a “suitably licensed or certified examiner” on “a party whose mental or physical 

condition . . . is in controversy.” “This means, for example, ‘that a parent or guardian suing to 

recover for injuries to a minor may be ordered to produce the minor for examination.’” Sali v. 

Corona Regional Medical Center, 884 F.3d 1218, 1223 (9th Cir. 2018), quoting FRCP 35 advisory 

committee's note to 1970 amendment. Courts often order plaintiffs claiming emotional distress 

Case 2:17-cv-01666-CSK Document 47 Filed 08/31/22 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

3

damages to undergo an IME when one or more of the following factors exist: “(1) the complaint 

includes a claim for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff 

alleges a specific mental or psychiatric injury or disorder; (3) the plaintiff claims unusually severe 

emotional distress; (4) plaintiff offers expert testimony to support the claim of emotional distress; 

or (5) the plaintiff concedes that her mental condition is ‘in controversy’ for purposes of Rule 

35.” J.M. v. County of Stanislaus, 2019 WL 6879676 at *8, (E.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2019).

The exam must happen by court order on good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a)(2)(A). “Good 

cause” factors that courts have considered include the possibility of obtaining desired information 

by other means, whether plaintiff plans to prove his claim through testimony of expert witnesses, 

whether the desired materials are relevant, and whether plaintiff is claiming ongoing emotional 

distress. Halliday v. Spjute, 2015 WL 3988903, *2 (E.D. Cal. June 30, 2015 AWI-GSA) (citing 

Turner v. Imperial Stores, 161 F.R.D. 89, 97-98 (S.D. Cal. 1995) (expert testimony); Ragge v. 

MCA/Universal Studios, 165 F.R.D. 605, 608 (C.D. Cal. 1995) (ongoing emotional distress); 

Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 118-19 (1964) (availability by other means).

If an examination is ordered, Rule 35 requires the court order “specify the time, place, 

manner, conditions, and scope of the examination, as well as the person or persons who will 

perform it.” “Courts have discretion in setting appropriate conditions for a physical or mental 

examination depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.” Newman v. San Joaquin 

Delta Community College District, 272 F.R.D. 505, 511 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2011).

Parties’ Arguments

At its core, defendants contend Dr. Greene should be allowed to conduct the IME in order 

to level the playing field. Defendants note that the complaint places From’s mental state at issue,

good cause exists for the exam, and they are willing to stipulate to certain protections for 

plaintiffs so as not to traumatize Mr. From. Defendants argue that without a counter expert they

will be unfairly prejudiced, as plaintiffs can present Dr. Balderian’s testimony, but defendants 

would have no similar support for their defenses. (ECF No. 39.)

Plaintiffs contend good cause is lacking, noting From is now 24 years old, is non-verbal, 

cannot read or write, and has the cognitive abilities of an 18 month to 2-year-old child. Plaintiffs 

Case 2:17-cv-01666-CSK Document 47 Filed 08/31/22 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

4

argue that because From’s symptoms have mostly resolved given the amount of time that has 

passed, because of From’s limited cognitive abilities, and because he is no longer in the same 

routine as he was back in 2017, it is unlikely Dr. Greene’s exam will yield any fruitful 

information. Plaintiffs also challenge whether Dr. Greene is qualified, that despite his 

“impressive resume,” noting he has no experience working with individuals with significant 

cognitive abilities who are also non-verbal. Finally, plaintiffs contend there are other avenues for 

defendants to obtain the information they seek, including examining the numerous documents 

already in possession by the school district (IEP plans, health records, and the like), the 

information gleaned from defendants’ deposition of Wagnon, and any interviews defendants

could conduct with their own employees. Thus, plaintiffs contend that “given the unique 

circumstances,” no good cause exists for the court to order the IME. (See ECF No. 45.)

Analysis – At Issue and Good Cause

At the outset, the court finds plaintiffs have put From’s mental state at issue, given the fact 

that they plan to produce their expert Dr. Balderian to support their damages claim and given 

plaintiffs appear to concede this point. See, e.g., J.M., 2019 WL 6879676 at *8. Turning to good 

cause, the court is sensitive to plaintiffs’ arguments, but on the whole agrees with defendants’ 

contentions and finds good cause for the IME.

Plaintiffs’ main concern appears to concern the fruitfulness of any exam. As discussed at 

the hearing, the court is well aware of the potential that Dr. Greene may not uncover any lasting 

emotional trauma, given that 6 years have passed since the alleged incident. However, plaintiff 

Wagnon does not specifically state that From’s trauma has completely resolved, but instead states

the symptoms “appear to have resolved after approximately 3 years with occasional flareups still 

continuing.” (See ECF No. 44, Ex. A, *8 (emphasis added).) Wagnon also recognizes that From 

has not been asked or required to face defendant since the incident. Thus, it is possible Dr. 

Greene’s exam may yield few results, or possible that when reexamined, From may experience a 

flareup. Either outcome affects the case, and so defendants should be allowed to probe this area 

via their expert’s examination. See, e.g., Hill v. Fairfield Police Department, 2017 WL 1198510 

at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar 31, 2017) (“Plaintiff here appears to have had multiple pre-existing mental 

Case 2:17-cv-01666-CSK Document 47 Filed 08/31/22 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

5

conditions. Even if plaintiff only claims that his PTSD was aggravated by the incident, 

defendants are entitled to explore plaintiff’s psychiatric condition to determine whether the 

alleged aggravated symptoms are truly attributable to the incident and PTSD, or whether there are 

other unrelated causes for such alleged symptoms.”).

Beyond this fact, the court notes other issues supporting a finding of good cause. First, it 

would unduly hamper defendants’ defense of their case if plaintiffs were allowed to offer their 

own expert’s testimony but defendants be disallowed a potentially-competing report. See, e.g., 

Nguyen v. Qualcomm Inc., 2013 WL 3353840, at *7 (S.D.Cal. July 3, 2013) (“A defendant 

should have a balanced opportunity to assess the plaintiff's allegations and proof concerning 

emotional distress damages, and a plaintiff's chosen expert should not be the only expert who ever 

actually examined the plaintiff.”). Second, the court agrees that defendants’ expert should be 

required to study up on From’s history by examining the universe of available discovery, 

including from plaintiff Wagnon’s deposition. However, this should not act as a bar to 

defendants, given that the scope of Dr. Greene’s questioning will delve into issues beyond what 

may be available in the documents. See, e.g., Franco v. Boston Scientific Corp., 2006 WL 

3065580, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2006) (declining to limit the scope of questioning where the 

examinee’s history was lengthy and predated the alleged events). Third, defendants’ time has yet 

to run out with discovery matters, given discovery is still open. (See ECF No. 28.) Fourth, while 

Dr. Greene’s lack of experience working with younger, non-verbal patients may be a fruitful 

avenue for attack at a Daubert hearing or on cross-examination before the jury, his resume shows 

he is a qualified, licensed professional for purposes of defendants’ Rule 35 motion. See, e.g., 

Newman, 272 F.R.D. 505 (finding defendant’s proposed examiner was qualified under the Rules 

despite plaintiff’s attack on the doctor’s lack of specific specialty, given the doctor was a licensed 

psychologist with significant experience). Thus, these concerns of plaintiffs do not affect the 

court’s finding of good cause.

Scope of the Exam

In addition to findings on the ‘at issue’ and ‘good cause’ prongs, Rule 35 requires the 

court order to “specify the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination, as well 

Case 2:17-cv-01666-CSK Document 47 Filed 08/31/22 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

6

as the person or persons who will perform it.” 

As to the date and length of the exam, counsel for the parties agreed to confer after 

discussion with plaintiff Wagnon and Dr. Greene. When the parties have agreed on these (and 

any other) parameters, they shall submit a stipulation and proposed order to the court for 

signature. 

Defendants have agreed to be flexible on the location, and after discussion with the 

parties, it appears the best place to conduct the exam will be at plaintiffs’ home. 

The court will not set limitations on the kinds of tests Dr. Greene will be allowed to 

conduct. See, e.g., Newman, 272 F.R.D. 505 (declining to limit the kinds of tests proposed 

without evidence that certain tests will be dangerous to the examinee). Further, no specific limits 

are set on Dr. Greene’s questioning of Wagnon concerning From’s history. However, defendants 

are cautioned that Dr. Greene’s exam shall not be harassing to plaintiffs and shall not act as a 

second deposition. Thus, to the extent Dr. Greene can conduct any investigation of From’s 

history prior to the exam, so as to lessen the burden on Wagnon, the doctor shall do so.

Finally, defendants had previously stipulated to allowing Wagnon to terminate Dr. 

Greene’s exam if at any time she feels, in good faith, that the exam is overly traumatizing to her 

son. Counsel for plaintiff shall review this good faith standard with Wagnon before the exam and 

shall make her aware that if the exam is ended early, it will be rescheduled for a future date. 

However, if the exam is prematurely terminated, it will be probably rescheduled to continue on a 

future date. The court will endeavor to make itself available the day of the exam, should any 

good faith disputes arise requiring court intervention. 

ORDER

It is HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ motion to conduct an independent medical 

exam of plaintiff From (ECF No. 39) is GRANTED on the conditions outlined in this order. 

Dated: August 30, 2022

wagn.1666

Case 2:17-cv-01666-CSK Document 47 Filed 08/31/22 Page 6 of 6