Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01574/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01574-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 310
Nature of Suit: Airplane Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Airline Crash

---

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

C-06-1574 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 1 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NAIM I. AYAT, 

Plaintiff,

v.

SOCIÈTÈ AIR FRANCE, ET AL.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 06-1574 JSW (JL)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO COMPEL RULE 35

EXAMINATIONS (DOCKET # 51, 62) 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Defendant Air France moves pursuant to Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and this Court’s January 9, 2007 Notice granting permission to file this motion

for an order compelling Plaintiff Naim I. Ayat to submit to physical and mental

examinations. Air France’s Motion was heard on March 21, 2007. Having considered the

pleadings, the record and oral argument, this Court hereby GRANTS Air France’s Motion to

Compel Rule 35 Examinations. 

Ayat’s mental and physical condition is in controversy and good cause exists for the

examinations. Air France may conduct the mental examination of Ayat as it proposes,

using both a psychiatrist and a neuropsychologist. Neither a third party observer nor a

recording device shall be permitted in the examining room. A neutral court appointed

translator may be present. The Rorschach Test, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale and

Case 3:06-cv-01574-JSW Document 77 Filed 04/16/07 Page 1 of 13
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

C-06-1574 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 2 of 13

the Wechsler Memory Scale are appropriate to assess Ayat’s psychological condition. 

Finally, the addition of Goodrich as a defendant does not warrant denying this motion or

postponing the examinations. 

 II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Naim I. Ayat, was a passenger aboard Air France Flight 358 from Paris,

France to Toronto, Canada on August 2, 2005. Air France is the air carrier that operated

Flight 358. Upon landing at Toronto’s Pearson International Airport, the aircraft overran the

runway and crashed into a ravine. Ayat filed his complaint on February 28, 2006, seeking

compensatory damages arising from his injuries. All discovery in this case has been

referred by the district court (Hon. Jeffrey S. White) as provided by 28 U.S.C. section

636(b) and Civil Local Rule 72. The close of fact discovery is January 20, 2008. The close

of all expert discovery is March 28, 2008. A jury trial is set for October 6, 2008. 

On November 6, 2006, Ayat filed his response to Air France’s interrogatories. 

Response to interrogatory number six states:

Plaintiff claims all available elements of damages ... This includes, but is not limited

to, past and future medical, rehabilitation and care taking expenses, past and future

mental pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, discomfort loss of past and future

earning capacity, fear and terror, emotional distress, discomfort, anxiety, loss of

enjoyment of life, physical injury, past and future pain and suffering and damage to,

loss and/or destruction of personal property. Plaintiff suffered and continues to

suffer from physical injuries including but not limited to smoke inhalation, back pain,

earaches, significant myofascial pain syndrome, depression, post-traumatic stress

disorder, loss of mobility, knee pain, weight gain, the sequella of said injuries, and

the significant loss of the ability to lead a normal and enjoyable life as a result of

these injuries. (See Lee Decl., Exhibit B). 

Ayat’s response to interrogatory number fifteen identifies the following experts who will

provide testimony:

Alex Barchuk, M.D. Claude S. Munday, Ph.D.

Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Neuropsychologist

Nature and extent Nature and extent of 

of Plaintiff’s physical injuries Plaintiff’s psychological injuries

(See Lee Decl., Exhibit B). 

On November 15, 2006, counsel for Air France made an initial inquiry about

scheduling medical examinations, as provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35. 

Case 3:06-cv-01574-JSW Document 77 Filed 04/16/07 Page 2 of 13
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

C-06-1574 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 3 of 13

Ayat’s counsel objected, and sought additional information regarding the proposed

examinations. On November 16, 2006, counsel for Air France e-mailed Ayat’s counsel

outlining the legal basis for its Rule 35 request. On November 21, 2006, Air France

provided Ayat with the details of mental and physical examinations to be conducted by Dr.

Marmar, Dr. Hooker and Dr. Prieto in San Francisco. On November 27, 2006, Ayat’s

counsel sent an e-mail to counsel for Air France objecting to the examinations on the

grounds that: (1) Air France did not have good cause for the examinations prior to deposing

Ayat’s treating physicians; (2) Air France had not indicated whether the examinations could

be recorded or attended by a representative for Ayat; and (3) both a psychologist

[psychiatrist] and a neuropsychologist was not necessary. (See Lee Decl., Exhibit B;

McGrory Decl., Exhibits A, B). On January 9, 2007, this Court granted Air France

permission to formally file this motion. 

On January 8, 2007, Ayat filed an amended complaint naming Goodrich as a

defendant. (See McGrory Decl., Exhibit F). On February 20, 2007, Goodrich filed a Motion

to Dismiss two of the four counts. (See McGrory Decl., Exhibit G). 

Air France’s Proposed Rule 35 Examinations

1) Mental examination: To be conducted at the University of California, San

Francisco at a mutually agreeable date and time in two parts:

a. Charles Marmar, M.D., a psychiatrist and Vice-Chair of the Psychiatry Department

at the University of California, San Francisco would conduct the following tests and

examinations: (I) Structured clinical interview for DSM-IV Diagnosis; (ii) Clinician

Administered PTSD Scale; (iii) Developmental History; and (iv) Lifetime Trauma

History Interview. Dr. Marmar anticipates that his examination will take

approximately four (4) hours.

b. William Hooker, Ph.D., a clinical neuropsychologist at the University of California,

San Francisco would conduct the following non-invasive tests and examinations: (I)

PTSD Checklist; (ii) Quality of Life Inventory; (iii) Minnesota Multi-Phasic Personality

Inventory – 2; (iv) Rorschach Test; (v) Portions of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence

Scale – 3rd Edition and the Wechsler Memory Scale – 3rd Edition; (vi) Hopkins

Symptom Checklist-90-R; and (vii) Beck Depression Inventory- II. Dr. Hooker

anticipates that his examination will take approximately four (4) hours.

c. Air France agrees to provide a court-certified interpreter in the Arabic language to

alleviate any communication concerns that Plaintiff may have about the fact that

English is not Plaintiff’s first language.

Case 3:06-cv-01574-JSW Document 77 Filed 04/16/07 Page 3 of 13
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

C-06-1574 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 4 of 13

d. To the extent possible, Dr. Marmar and Dr. Hooker will attempt to schedule their

examinations to take place on the same day so as to minimize Plaintiff’s travel from

Rohnert Park to San Francisco.

2) Physical examination: To be conducted at a mutually agreeable date and time at

the office of Victor Prieto, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon at Saint Francis Memorial Hospital

in San Francisco. Dr. Prieto’s physical examination will consist of a patient history interview

and a non-invasive physical examination of the plaintiff. Dr. Prieto anticipates that his

examination will take approximately 1 to 2 hours. 

A. Air France agrees to provide a court-certified interpreter in the Arabic language to

alleviate any communication concerns that plaintiff may have about the fact that

English is not plaintiff’s first language. Air France objects to having any of these

physical or mental examinations recorded or otherwise monitored or attended by

plaintiff’s attorney, psychiatrist, or other third-party observer.

III. Analysis 

A. Governing Law

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35(a), when the mental or physical condition

of a party is in controversy, the court may order the party to submit to a physical or mental

examination by a suitably licensed or certified examiner. The order may be made only on a

motion for good cause. Fed.R.Civ.P. 35(a). 

A party seeking to compel a mental or physical examination of an adverse party

must demonstrate that (1) the adverse party’s mental or physical condition is in controversy

and (2) there is good cause for the examination. In the leading case of Schlagenhauf v.

Holder, 379 U.S. 104 (1964) the Supreme Court found that the “in controversy” and “good

cause “ requirements of Rule 35 “are not met by mere conclusory allegations of the

pleadings - nor by mere relevance to the case - but require an affirmative showing by the

movant that each condition as to which the examination is sought is really and genuinely in

controversy and that good cause exists for ordering each particular examination. Id. at

118. 

i. Ayat’s mental condition is “in controversy.”

In Turner v. Imperial Stores, 161 F.R.D. 89 (S.D.Cal.1995), the district court

conducted a thorough analysis of case law to determine whether a party’s claim of

Case 3:06-cv-01574-JSW Document 77 Filed 04/16/07 Page 4 of 13
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

C-06-1574 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 5 of 13

“emotional distress” is sufficient to place that party’s mental state in controversy sufficient to

justify a Rule 35 examination. The court found that “garden-variety” emotional distress

alone is not sufficient to place a party’s mental state in controversy. Id. at 97. Still, the

court found that courts will order a mental examination where the case involves, in addition

to emotional distress, one or more of the following: (1) a cause of action for intentional or

negligent infliction of emotional distress; (2) an allegation of a specific mental or psychiatric

injury or disorder; (3) a claim of unusually severe emotional distress; (4) plaintiff’s offer of

expert testimony to support a claim of emotional distress; or (5) plaintiff’s concession that

his or her mental condition is “in controversy” with in the meaning of Rule 35(a). Id. at 95. 

Further, an alleged ongoing mental or emotional illness puts the claimant’s mental condition

in controversy. See Ragge v. MCA/Universal Studios, 165 F.R.D. 605, 608 (C.D.Cal.1995);

Turner at 97. 

First, Ayat has not alleged a cause of action for intentional or negligent infliction of

emotional distress. Ayat’s Complaint states, “[t]his action seeks compensatory damages

arising from the bodily injury and emotional distress sustained...” (See Lee Decl., Exhibit

A). A claim for emotional distress alone will not in itself put the plaintiff’s mental condition in

controversy. See Turner at 98. 

Second, Ayat has alleged a specific mental or psychiatric injury or disorder. Ayat’s

response to interrogatory number six states, “Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer from

physical injuries including but not limited to ... depression, post-traumatic stress disorder ...

.” (See Lee Decl., Exhibit B). Both depression and post-traumatic stress disorder

constitute a specific mental or psychiatric injury or disorder. 

Third, Ayat arguably states a claim of unusually severe emotional distress. In

response to interrogatory number six, Ayat asserts that he seeks damages for, inter alia:

... loss of past and future earning capacity, fear and terror, emotional distress,

discomfort, anxiety, loss of enjoyment of life, ... , past and future pain and suffering

... Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer from depression, post-traumatic

stress disorder, ... and the loss of ability to lead a normal and enjoyable life as a

result of these injuries. (See Lee Decl., Exhibit B).

Ayat’s response to interrogatory number six seems to indicate severe emotional distress. 

Case 3:06-cv-01574-JSW Document 77 Filed 04/16/07 Page 5 of 13
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

C-06-1574 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 6 of 13

Fourth, Ayat’s response to interrogatory number fifteen indicates that he will offer

expert testimony to support a claim of emotional distress. Ayat’s response states:

Plaintiff has not yet determined what experts Plaintiff will call at trial pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2). However, Plaintiff does expect the

following individuals to provide testimony pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702:

Alex Barchuk, MD Claude S. Munday, Ph.D.

Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Neuropsychologist

Nature and extent of Plaintiff’s Psychological injuries

physical injuries

(See Lee Decl., Exhibit B). Ayat plans to offer the testimony of neuropsychologist Dr.

Claude S. Munday, Ph.D., to support his claim of psychological injuries. 

Fifth, Ayat does not argue that his mental condition is not “in controversy” within the

meaning of Rule 35(a). 

Finally, Ayat specifically alleges that his mental conditions are “ongoing” in his

response to interrogatory number six. Ayat states, “[p]laintiff suffered and continues to

suffer from ... depression, post-traumatic stress disorder...” (See Lee Decl., Exhibit B). 

Ayat’s mental condition is clearly “in controversy.” According to the court in Turner,

a plaintiff’s mental condition is in controversy when one of the five factors are found. Here,

while Ayat has not brought an action for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional

distress (factor 1), factors two, three, four and five are present. Ayat alleges that he suffers

from depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Ayat asserts a host of mental stresses

that could indicate an unusually severe emotional distress. Ayat offers the expert testimony

of a neuropsychologist who will testify as to his psychological injuries and does not argue

that his mental condition is not in controversy. Finally, Ayat alleges an ongoing mental or

emotional illness, thereby putting his mental condition in controversy.

ii. Ayat’s physical condition is also “in controversy.”

While the factors articulated in Turner are used to determine whether a party’s

mental condition is in controversy, a similar analysis indicates that Ayat’s physical condition

is additionally in controversy. 

Case 3:06-cv-01574-JSW Document 77 Filed 04/16/07 Page 6 of 13
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

C-06-1574 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 7 of 13

In his complaint, Ayat states that “[t]his action seeks compensatory damages arising

from the bodily injury and emotional distress sustained by the plaintiff, Naim I.Ayat ...” (See

Lee Decl., Exhibit A). Section fifteen of the first cause of action states that Ayat suffers: 

... great pain and suffering, has suffered and will in the future suffer disability and

disfigurement, has been caused to incur and will in the future incur expenses for

necessary medical care, treatment and services, has suffered and will in the future

suffer a lost of the value of his time, earnings, profits and salaries and has been and

will be damaged in his earning capacity, and has otherwise been damaged in a

personal and pecuniary way. (See Lee Decl., Exhibit A). 

In addition, Ayat’s answer to interrogatory number six indicates that he has

sustained physical injuries, including: smoke inhalation, back pain, earaches, significant

myofascial pain syndrome, loss of mobility, knee pain, weight gain, the sequelae of said

injuries, and the significant loss of the ability to lead a normal and enjoyable life as the

result of the injuries. (See Lee Decl., Exhibit B).

Further, Ayat intends to rely on the testimony of a physical medicine and

rehabilitation specialist to discuss the nature and extent of Ayat’s physical injuries. (See

Lee Decl., Exhibit B). 

Ayat has placed his own physical condition in controversy and does not contest that

fact. He alleges specific bodily injuries which form the basis of his complaint for damages. 

In addition, Ayat intends to call an expert to discuss the nature and extent of his alleged

physical injuries. Clearly, Ayat’s physical condition is genuinely in controversy as required

by the Supreme Court in Schlagenhauf. 

iii. Good cause exists to warrant Rule 35 examinations.

In Schlagenhauf, the Supreme Court discussed the‘good cause’ requirement of Rule

35. The Court stated that there are situations where the pleadings alone are sufficient to

meet the Rule 35 requirements, “[a] plaintiff in a negligence action who asserts mental or

physical injury ... places that mental or physical injury clearly in controversy and provides

the defendant with good cause for an examination to determine the existence and extent of

such asserted injury.” Id. at 119. Based on Schlagenhauf, good cause exists to order the

Rule 35 examinations because it is Ayat who places his own mental and physical condition

at issue, as opposed to his condition being placed at issue by Air France.

Case 3:06-cv-01574-JSW Document 77 Filed 04/16/07 Page 7 of 13
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

C-06-1574 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 8 of 13

In Franco v. Boston Scientific Corporation, 2006 WL 3065580 *1 (N.D.Cal.), the

court listed several factors that courts have considered when determining whether good

cause exists to order a Rule 35 examination. The factors are: (1) the possibility of

obtaining desired information by other means; (2) whether plaintiff plans to prove her claim

through testimony of expert witnesses; (3) whether the desired materials are relevant, and;

(4) whether plaintiff claims ongoing emotional distress. Id. (Internal citations omitted). 

First, Air France does not argue that the information sought through the Rule 35

examinations is unavailable through other means. However, in Schlagenhauf the Court

characterized the availability of information sought through other means, as “relevant,” and

in Franco, the court characterized it as a factor that courts have considered. See

Schlagenhauf at 118; Franco at *1. Neither Court characterized this consideration as an

element that must be met to establish good cause. Thus, the fact that Air France has not

exhausted less invasive avenues of discovery may militate against a finding of good cause,

but is not decisive. 

 Second, as indicated above, Ayat plans to rely on the testimony of expert witnesses. 

Independent examinations by Air France’s experts are warranted to adequately scrutinize

and rebut the conclusions of Ayat’s experts. This factor militates in favor of a finding of

good cause. 

Third, the information sought from the Rule 35 examinations goes to the heart of the

litigation. Ayat seeks compensatory damages arising from bodily injury and emotional

distress allegedly sustained as a passenger on an Air France flight. Ayat alleges that he

suffers from a host of physical and mental illnesses for which he seeks compensation. The

relevance of information that may be obtained through physical and mental examinations

conducted by Air France’s medical experts is patent. This factor militates in favor of a

finding of good cause. 

Finally, Ayat specifically alleges on-going physical and mental injuries. Ayat makes

claims for “past and future medical, rehabilitation, and care-taking expenses,” “past and

future mental pain and suffering,” and alleges that he “continues to suffer from physical

injuries” such as back pain, significant myofascial pain syndrome, depression, and postCase 3:06-cv-01574-JSW Document 77 Filed 04/16/07 Page 8 of 13
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

C-06-1574 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 9 of 13

traumatic stress disorder. (See Lee Decl., Exhibit B). This factor militates in favor of a

finding of good cause. 

Based on the principles set forth in Schlagenhauf and Franco, good cause exists for

Rule 35 mental and physical examinations. 

iv. A Two-Part Mental Examination conducted by a Psychiatrist and a

Neuropsychologist is warranted.

Air France seeks to have Ayat’s mental condition comprehensively tested by doctors

from two distinct disciplines: psychiatry and neuropsychology. Air France submits the

declaration of Dr. Charles Marmar, Professor and Vice Chair of the Department of

Psychiatry at UCSF, and the Associate Chief of Staff, Mental Health and Director of the

PTSD research Program for the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in San

Francisco. Dr. Marmar indicates that to assess Ayat’s alleged mental and psychological

injuries, he will conduct a series of non-invasive interviews and examinations including a

Structural Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Diagnosis, the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale,

a Developmental History, and the Lifetime Trauma History Interview. (See Dr. Marmar

Decl.). 

Dr. Marmar states that Dr. William Hooker, a colleague at UCSF who is a qualified

neuropsychologist, will conduct the following psychological evaluations of Ayat: PTSD

Checklist; Quality of Life Inventory; Minnesota Multi-Phasic Personality Inventory -2; the

Rorschach Test; portions fo the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale -3rd Edition and the

Wechsler Memory -3rd Edition; the Hopkins Symptom Checklist -90-R; and the Beck

Depression Inventory - II. Dr. Marmar states that the psychological evaluation is necessary

to obtain a complete and comprehensive picture of Ayat’s current mental and psychological

condition, and that a team approach with a psychologist and psychiatrist is common and

necessary to fully assess and evaluate a patient’s mental condition. Further, Dr. Marmar

states that Dr. Hooker’s evaluations are done by standardized testing and are useful for the

refinement of his own diagnosis. Good cause exists for a two-part mental examination

conducted by both a psychiatrist and a neuropsychologist. 

Case 3:06-cv-01574-JSW Document 77 Filed 04/16/07 Page 9 of 13
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

C-06-1574 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 10 of 13

v. Neither a third party representative nor a tape recorder are needed in the

examinations. 

In Holland v. United States, 182 F.R.D. 493, 495 (D.S.C.1998), the court conducted

an extensive survey of federal decisions and found that the weight of authority favors the

exclusion of the plaintiff’s attorney from a Rule 35 examination absent a compelling reason. 

The court found that the majority of federal courts have rejected the notion that any third

party should be allowed, even indirectly through a recording device, to observe a Rule 35

examination. Id.; Cal. Prac. Guide Fed. Civ. Pro. Before Trial, Ch.11 (IV) - E. 

In Galieti v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 154 F.R.D. 262

(D.Colo.1994), the court similarly conducted an extensive survey of federal decisions and

came to the conclusion that each case must be reviewed on its own facts, there should be

no presumption either way, and the party seeking the presence of a third party or recording

device must carry the burden of convincing the court. Id. at 265. 

The court in Tomlin v. Holecek, 150 F.R.D. 628 (D.Minn.1993), detailed a split of

authority that exists regarding this issue. The court refused to allow the presence of

counsel, a third party, or tape recorder during a psychological exam because it would: (1)

potentially invalidate the examination results; (2) fail to provide a “level playing field,” as

plaintiff was not required to tape record his examinations with his own health care

providers; and (3) create an adversarial environment during an evaluation that should be

neutral. 

Ayat argues that he has difficulty speaking and understanding English and would

therefore have difficulty describing the examination to his counsel, who would in turn have

difficulty assessing any testimony offered by Air France’s doctors. However, Air France

has agreed to provide and pay for a court-certified Arabic interpreter to be present during

the examination. The use of a neutral third-party interpreter should alleviate any

communication concerns that Ayat may have. 

Ayat further argues that Air France’s doctors are biased because their interest is in

serving Air France. The mere fact that Air France’s experts were hired by Air France,

standing alone, does not create enough concern to warrant a third party observer. Ayat

Case 3:06-cv-01574-JSW Document 77 Filed 04/16/07 Page 10 of 13
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

C-06-1574 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 11 of 13

submits no independent documentation indicating that the doctors offered by Air France

present a cause for concern. 

Air France argues that the presence of a third party witness would diminish the

accuracy of the evaluations and create an adversarial atmosphere. Air France’s concerns

are legitimate. In Ragge v. MCA/Universal Studios, 165 F.R.D. 605 (C.D.Cal.1995), the

court denied a request to have a third party observe a mental examination because, “[t]hird

party observers may, regardless of their good intentions, contaminate a mental

examination.” Id. at 609-10 (citing Tomlin and Galieti). The court stated that the potential

for a third party observer to interfere with, or even contaminate, a mental examination is

recognized in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2032(g)(1), which provides that an

observer may be present at a physical examination but does not provide for an observer at

a mental examination. Id. at 610. The court also took into consideration the fact that the

examining doctor did not propose to use unorthodox or potentially harmful techniques in his

examination. Id. Based on the facts of this case, a third party observer or tape recording

device is unwarranted for the examinations. 

vi. The Rorschach Test, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (“WAIS”), and the

Wechsler Memory Scale (“WMS”) are appropriate tools for assessing Ayat’s

phsychological state. 

a. The Rorschach Test

Air France provides the declaration of its proposed neuropsychologist, Dr. William

D. Hooker, who asserts that the Rorschach Test is neither overly subjective nor prone to

examiner bias. Dr. Hooker’s declaration contains an article from the Journal of Personal

Assessment, 95(2), 219-237, entitled, The Status of the Rorschach in Clinical and Forensic

Practice: An Official Statement by the Board of Trustees of the Society for Personality

Assessment. The article states:

This statement is intended for psychologists, other mental health professionals,

educators, attorneys, judges, and administrators. Its purpose is to present a

summary of the issues and evidence concerning the Rorschach. This statement

affirms that the Rorschach possesses reliability and validity similar to that of other

generally accepted personality assessment instruments, and its responsible use in

personality assessment is appropriate and justified. (See Hooker Decl., Exhibit A). 

Case 3:06-cv-01574-JSW Document 77 Filed 04/16/07 Page 11 of 13
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

C-06-1574 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 12 of 13

The article specifically states that the Rorschach in court and legal settings, “meets

the variety of legal tests for admissibility, including validity, publication in peer reviewed

journals, and acceptance within the relevant professional community.” (See Hooker Decl.,

Exhibit A). The article is based on a significant amount of supporting data. Dr. Hooker

additionally states that when administering the Rorschach Test, he will follow the

standardized administration and scoring protocols based on the Exner Comprehensive

Scoring System. Based on Dr. Hooker’s declaration and the data that Air France has

submitted to the Court, the Court finds the Rorschach is a proper tool to assess the

psychological functioning and injury of Ayat. 

b. The WAIS and WMS

Dr. Hooker asserts that the portions of the WAIS and the WMS that he will be using

assess working memory and mental processing speed: Ayat’s ability to hold auditory-verbal

and visual information in mind while working with it; Ayat’s ability to incidentally recall visual

information he was working with; Ayat’s ability to attend and concentrate using auditoryverbal and visual information, and; Ayat’s psychomotor speed. Dr. Hooker states that all of

these mental abilities can be adversely impacted by stress, anxiety, and/or depression and

are indirect measures of an individual’s psychological state. Dr. Hooker states that he will

not be assessing Ayat’s intelligence or his immediate and delayed memory, and therefore

the language and cultural differences will not compromise or contaminate the results. (See

Hooker Decl., Exhibit A). Based on Dr. Hooker’s detailed explanation of the WAIS and

WMS, it appears as though Ayat’s concerns about cultural bias should be alleviated, and

the tests appear calculated to enable Dr. Hooker to provide a comprehensive opinion.

vii. The Effect of the Goodrich Defendants on Rule 35 examinations 

The addition of Goodrich as a defendant should not preclude Rule 35 examinations. 

Ayat chose to bring Goodrich into the litigation, and only filed his Second Amended

Complaint in January of 2007. Ayat cannot use the addition of Goodrich to preclude Rule

35 examinations now. Ayat may seek a protective order later if necessary. 

Case 3:06-cv-01574-JSW Document 77 Filed 04/16/07 Page 12 of 13
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

C-06-1574 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 13 of 13

IV. Conclusion 

Air France’s motion for Rule 35 examinations is GRANTED. Ayat’s mental and

physical condition are in controversy and good cause exists for the examinations. Air

France may conduct the mental examination of Ayat as it proposes, using both a

psychiatrist and a neuropsychologist. Neither a third party observer nor a recording device

shall be permitted in the examining room. A neutral court appointed translator may be

present. The Rorschach Test, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale and the Wechsler

Memory Scale are appropriate to assess Ayat’s psychological condition. Finally, the

addition of Goodrich as a defendant does not warrant denying this motion or postponing the

examinations. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 16, 2007 

__________________________________

 JAMES LARSON

 Chief Magistrate Judge

G:\JLALL\CHAMBERS\CASES\CIV-REF\06-1574\06-1574-ORD-Grant-51,62.wpd

Case 3:06-cv-01574-JSW Document 77 Filed 04/16/07 Page 13 of 13