Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04018/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04018-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Yolanda Cendejas
Plaintiff
Federal Insurance Company, Inc.
Defendant
The Chubb Group of Insurance Companies
Defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Yolanda Cendejas,

 Plaintiff(s),

 v.

Federal Insurance Company, Inc., a

New Jersey Corporation doing

business as The Chubb Group of

Insurance Companies,

 Defendant(s).

____________________________/

No. C 04-4018 TEH (WDB)

ORDER RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION

TO COMPEL PSYCHIATRIC AND

PSYCHOLOGICAL

EXAMINATIONS OF PLAINTIFF

Having considered the parties’ substantial submissions, the Court hereby

GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Chubb’s motion to compel plaintiff to

submit to psychiatric and psychological examinations conducted by forensic

professionals retained by defendant. 

Dr. Levy and Dr. Roberts effectively take the court to task for appearing to impose

limits, in advance, on the range of diagnostic conclusions or hypotheses that would be

accessible to examiners. Among the claims that defendant may fairly challenge in this

case are the plaintiff’s contentions that she suffered from OCD and from “Severe

Depression” (or, perhaps more conventionally, some version of the affective disorder

currently characterized, generally, as “Major Depression”). Defendant may take the

position, and present evidence to support that position, that plaintiff in fact suffered from

neither “disorder” – that she suffered from some other disorder or from no disorder at all.

Case 3:04-cv-04018-TEH Document 66 Filed 11/08/05 Page 1 of 3
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

The court also has no business assuming that Ms. Cendejas’ symptoms have in fact

subsided, or that she does not continue to suffer in some degree from some kind of

continuing disorder or condition that could be relevant to the causation or damages

issues in this case, simply because she and/or her clinician now take such positions. 

In addition, defendant’s experts appropriately question the basis for the court’s

unexamined assumption that testing that explores exaggeration (or understatement)could

not shed light on the causes or severity of the mental or emotional conditions that

plaintiff suffered, or claims to have suffered, and that she alleges were caused or

exacerbated by defendant’s conduct. What the court intended to place off-limits was

‘expert’ testimony about whether, during the trial or during her deposition, plaintiff was

telling the truth or lying. This limitation is not rooted in some half-baked assessment of

the pertinent ‘science,’ but in the 7th Amendment and in policy-based determinations, by

the judicial and legislative branches, that it would not be appropriate to permit parties

to use experts to challenge the veracity or accuracy of testimony in every judicial

proceeding in which the outcome might be affected by how tensions between unaligned

versions of events are resolved. 

The issue that remains is whether defendant has made a showing sufficient to

justify the examinations proposed by Dr. Levy and Dr. Roberts. Despite being

instructed clearly by the court to do so, Dr. Levy has failed to describe, with anything

approaching particularity, the nature of the line of inquiry or the questions he proposes

using. Nor has he persuaded the court that the presumptively unstructured interview that

he proposes conducting is likely to add significantly to the understanding of possible

long-term disorders or conditions that Dr. Roberts says his tests will help detect and

assess. These shortcomings in Dr. Levy’s declarations require the court to find that

defendant has failed to make the showing necessary to justify an examination by Dr.

Levy.

Dr. Roberts’ declaration identifies three specific and widely used tests. He also

describes, with some particularity, how these tests could help determine whether Ms.

Cendejas has some long term disorder or condition that could have caused or contributed

Case 3:04-cv-04018-TEH Document 66 Filed 11/08/05 Page 2 of 3
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

to the reactions (or events) she reports (or does not report). Dr. Roberts’ submissions are

sufficient to justify administering the three tests he has identified. 

In administering and interpreting these three tests, Dr. Roberts may well venture

into matters of “validity” and/or of exaggeration or understatement. As he points out,

“validity” in this setting is a concept that describes the relationship between one

individual’s responses and the responses of many, many other people. How much

accurate diagnostic mileage a professional can get out of that comparison in this

particular case is a matter we would expect the parties’ experts to debate. In the course

of their dialogue, the court would hope that someone would inquire into the basis for the

assertion that the responses of an analytically significant percentage of the persons

whose answers inform the “large database” used as a baseline in these matters “have

independently been deemed to be valid.” 

For the reasons set forth above, Dr. Roberts may administer and interpret (if

‘valid’) the three tests he describes in his most recent declaration. In doing so, he will

comply with the conditions set forth in sections (a) and (b) of paragraph “4.” of the

Court’s Order of October 13, 2005. The conditions imposed in sections (c) and (d) of

that paragraph are hereby withdrawn. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 8, 2005 

 WAYNE D. BRAZIL

 United States Magistrate Judge

cc: parties, WDB, TEH, stats

Case 3:04-cv-04018-TEH Document 66 Filed 11/08/05 Page 3 of 3