Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00378/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00378-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Defendant
Eric Edward Juell
Plaintiff
David Williams
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

 The parties filed a flurry of papers aside from the joint statement within the week before 1

the hearing, all of which are not in compliance with E.D. Local Rule 37-251, and have not been

considered. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC EDWARD JUELL,

Plaintiff, CIV. NO. S-05-0378 FCD GGH 

vs.

FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS, 

INC., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Previously pending on this court’s law and motion calendar for June 29, 2006,

was defendants’ motion to compel medical examination of plaintiff pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

35. Lizbeth West appeared for defendants. Linda Sloven appeared telephonically for plaintiff. 

Having heard oral argument and reviewed the parties’ joint statement filed June 22, 2006, the

court now issues the following order.1

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brings this action against his former employer Forest Pharmaceuticals

and former supervisor David Williams, for age discrimination, age harassment, wrongful

Case 2:05-cv-00378-FCD-GGH Document 82 Filed 07/05/06 Page 1 of 5
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

 Injunctive relief is merely a request that defendants follow the law by not participating 2

in age discrimination.

 Plaintiff’s other condition, that the expert’s report be provided to plaintiff prior to the 3

deposition of plaintiff’s expert witness, was apparently agreed to by defendants. 

2

termination, and for not preventing discrimination and harassment from occurring, all under the

California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Pertinent to the instant dispute is plaintiff’s claim

of mental and emotional distress which he claims includes “frustration, depression, nervousness,

anxiety and loss of self-worth,” which has resulted in his inability to work. (Compl., ¶¶ 31, 39.) 

This claim is alleged in regard to all four causes of action, for age discrimination, age

harassment, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and violation of Cal. Govt. Code

§ 12940(k). Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of $100,000, claiming he has suffered and will

continue to suffer mental and emotional distress. (Compl., ¶¶ 39, 36, 53, 58.) The case was

originally filed on January 26, 2005, in the superior court in Nevada County, and removed here

under diversity jurisdiction on February 25, 2005. Plaintiff seeks damages.2

On June 20, 2006, the district court modified the scheduling order to permit the

parties to file this motion and conduct any discovery ordered as a result.

DISCUSSION

A. Rule 35 Exam

Defendants seek to compel a medical exam of plaintiff so that their expert witness

may render an opinion concerning plaintiff’s mental health and emotional distress claims. 

Plaintiff initially agreed to the examination but only if it was limited to ninety minutes, if no

written testing was used, and if plaintiff were permitted to tape record the examination. 

3

Defendants seek an examination of eight hours duration, and want to use a variety of wellestablished and widely accepted methods of psychological testing and analysis, including the

MMPI and MCMI personality tests. These conditions should level the playing field, according to

defendants, because plaintiff has named two experts, both his treating healthcare providers, who

Case 2:05-cv-00378-FCD-GGH Document 82 Filed 07/05/06 Page 2 of 5
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

 As also mentioned earlier, the joint stipulation filed on June 22, 2006 was the only 4

pleading filed in compliance with Rule 37-251, and the only document considered for this order. 

Unfortunately, it is actually a photocopy of a joint statement first filed on May 9, 2006. The

parties did not bother to update their statement but just re-filed it. As a result, it includes outdated

issues such as plaintiff’s claim that defendants are in “procedural default” by failing to compel

this examination by the March 31, 2006 discovery cutoff. This argument is moot since Judge

Damrell has since extended the time to hear this motion. Such laziness and failure to comply

with the local rules wastes court resources.

3

have spent many hours with him over a number of years. 

At the hearing, defendants represented that they had stipulated to allowing

plaintiff to tape record the exam, so long as it was not intrusive and was more than one hour in

length. As the court was not aware of this stipulation, defendants pointed to a footnote in their

papers which referred to this resolution. It appears that this resolution was mentioned in a

footnote in their motion to compel filed on June 22, 2006, one week before the hearing. As

noted above, this motion was not reviewed in deciding the instant motion as it is not in

compliance with Rule 37-251. Furthermore, if a point of contention that is one of the bases for

bringing the motion is later resolved, it should be mentioned in a place of more importance than

in a footnote. 

4

Legal Standards

“[I]n order for a party seeking to compel a psychiatric examination under Rule 35

to establish that the other party’s mental condition is ‘in controversy’ within the meaning of the

Rule, the moving party must show more than that the party in question has claimed emotional

distress.” Turner v. Imperial Stores, 161 F.R.D. 89, 97 (S.D.Cal.1995); accord, Ford v. Contra

Costa County, 179 F.R.D. 579, 580 (N.D.Cal. 1998). Before a mental examination is compelled,

in addition to a bare claim for mental distress, the moving party should demonstrate 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; and/or 5) plaintiff’s

Case 2:05-cv-00378-FCD-GGH Document 82 Filed 07/05/06 Page 3 of 5
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

 As Judge Aaron noted, only one published opinion in the Ninth Circuit prior to Turner 5

addressed the IME issue--Smedley v. Capps, Staples, Ward, Hastings & Dodson, 820 F.Supp.

1227 (N.D.Cal.1993). The Smedley court granted defendants’ motion for mental examination,

solely because of plaintiff’s bare claim of emotional distress. As the Turner court observed, the

Smedley court reached its conclusion without analysis or citation to authority. Turner, 161

F.R.D. at 93. Accordingly, this court relies on the careful analysis set forth in Turner.

4

concession that his or her mental condition is ‘in controversy’

within the meaning of Rule 35(a).

 Turner, 161 F.R.D. at 95. 5

Cases which involve little more than garden variety allegations of past emotional

distress ordinarily are not sufficient to require a mental exam. Sabree v. United Broth. of

Carpenters & Joiners, 126 F.R.D. 422, 426 (D. Mass. 1989) (finding that although complaint

contained specific claims for emotional distress under state law, plaintiff’s mental condition was

not at issue); Benchmaster, Inc. v. Kawaelde, 107 F.R.D. 752, 754 (E.D. Mich. 1985) (proffering

rationale that psychiatrist could aid only in determining present emotional disturbance). Mental

exams are generally not allowed absent specific facts demonstrating emotional state will be at

issue. See, e.g., Lowe v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 101 F.R.D. 296, 298 (E.D. Pa. 1983)

(plaintiff had designated testifying psychiatric experts and had received psychiatric care). 

Claims for past emotional distress at best permit the court discretion whether to

allow a Rule 35 exam. Hodges v. Keane, 145 F.R.D. 332, 334 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). The

determination is made on a case by case basis. See, e.g., Ziemann v. Burlington County Bridge

Com’n, 155 F.R.D. 497, 501 (D.N.J. 1994) (considering, inter alia, alleged injury and whether

claim is ongoing); Anson v. Fickel, 110 F.R.D. 184, 186 (N.D.Ind. 1986) (considering resort to

psychiatric or psychological counseling). 

Analysis

Plaintiff has raised specific facts demonstrating that he has placed his emotional

state is in controversy, including his concession that he has been under the care of a psychiatrist

and a psychologist due to emotional distress suffered in connection with his employment. Juell

Case 2:05-cv-00378-FCD-GGH Document 82 Filed 07/05/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Decl. ¶ 3. Accordingly, an independent medical examination is appropriate. The length of the

proposed exam is reasonable; therefore it shall be limited to eight hours, which includes an hour

break for lunch. Defendants’ expert will be permitted to conduct reasonable testing as he

determines is necessary. Plaintiff is permitted to tape record the exam so long as the tape is

longer than one hour and is not intrusive.

B. Defense Expert Deposition

Plaintiff requests that pursuant to Judge Damrell’s modification of the scheduling

order, he be permitted to take Dr. Weissman’s (defendants’ expert) deposition before August 31,

2006, and that his file be provided to plaintiff at least a week before the deposition. Plaintiff’s

request is granted.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to compel Rule 35 medical examination is granted in

accordance with the conditions set forth in this order.

2. Plaintiff’s request to take Dr. Weissman’s deposition before August 31, 2006

is granted. Defendants shall provide plaintiff with this expert’s file at least one week before the

deposition.

DATED: 7/5/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076

Juell0378.R35.wpd

Case 2:05-cv-00378-FCD-GGH Document 82 Filed 07/05/06 Page 5 of 5