Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04057/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04057-15/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Allstate Insurance Company
Defendant
Heckendorn
Defendant
Eugene Taback
Plaintiff
Gail Taback
Plaintiff

Document Text:

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GAIL TABACK; EUGENE TABACK,

Plaintiffs,

 vs.

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY; FRED

HECKENDORN; et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-05-4057 MEJ

DISCOVERY DISPUTE

On July 24, 2006, the parties submitted a joint discovery dispute letter regarding two issues. 

First, whether Allstate may question plaintiff Eugene Taback in deposition about the events

underlying the fire. Second, whether Mr. Taback must undergo a mental examination. After careful

consideration of the parties' papers and oral arguments, the applicable statutory and case law

authorities, and good cause appearing, the court hereby issues the following order.

I. Scope of Eugene Taback's Deposition

Mr. Taback was scheduled for a deposition on June 30, 2006. (July 24, 2006 Joint Letter

"J.L." at 1.) On June 28, 2006, Plaintiffs' counsel informed Allstate that Mr. Taback was suffering

from a mental health crisis and was not competent to give testimony and would not be able to appear

for his deposition. Id. According to Mrs. Taback's deposition testimony, Mr. Taback drove to a

bridge and considered jumping off. Id. Although Mr. Taback has not sought professional

Case 3:05-cv-04057-MEJ Document 97 Filed 09/14/06 Page 1 of 5
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 2

psychological help and is reluctant to do so, he confided in a neighbor, Terry Meyers, who is a

licensed psychologist. Id. at 1-2; Decl. of Terry Meyers ¶ 5. According to Mrs. Meyers, Mr. Taback

has had multiple traumatic events in the past two and half years. (Decl. of Terry Meyers ¶ 3.) Mr.

Taback is struggling with depression over the loss of his job and with the loss of his home in the fire.

Id. He is experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder due to the stress of the legal proceedings,

anticipation of videotape deposition, and retelling of the details surrounding the fire. Id. 

After the attorneys met and conferred on the matter, Mr. Taback is willing to undergo a

deposition if he is not questioned about the events that occurred on the day of the fire. (J.L. at 2.)

Allstate argues that it is entitled to explore whether and to what extent Mr. Taback's emotional condition

is the result of the fire and his memory of the fire, as opposed to Allstate's alleged delay in Plaintiffs'

claim. Id. According to Plaintiffs' attorney, Mr. Taback may be asked about the events that occurred

after the fire, including efforts to rebuild his home, the amount of the home, and the personal property

claims. Id. As for the emotional distress claim, Mr. Taback may answer questions relating to his loss

of job, and events that occurred after the fire that caused him emotional distress. Id. However, asking

Mr. Taback to relive the fire may push him over the edge. Id.

The court agrees with Allstate. Mr. Taback has placed his mental state at issue by seeking

damages for emotional distress resulting from Allstate's alleged actions. Although Mr. Taback agrees

to be deposed, the court is unwilling to limit Allstate's ability to depose him on matters that are directly

related to his allegations and suit. Allstate is entitled to explore whether Mr. Taback's emotional

condition is the result of the fire and his memory of the fire, as opposed to Allstate's alleged actions.

Therefore, the court hereby ORDERS Mr. Taback to submit to a deposition, where he can be questioned

about the events that occurred on the day of the fire. 

Lastly, Mrs. Meyers suggests that if Mr. Taback is to be deposed, he should not be videotaped,

Mrs. Taback should be present, and Mr. Taback should be scheduled on a date that would allow Mrs.

Meyers to see Mr. Taback immediately following the deposition. Allstate has no objection to these

requests. (See Allstate's Response to Plaintiffs' Opposition.)

Case 3:05-cv-04057-MEJ Document 97 Filed 09/14/06 Page 2 of 5
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 3

II. Mental Examination

In light of Mr. Taback's emotional distress claim, Allstate has retained Margo M. Leahy,

M.D., a board-certified psychiatrist, to examine Mr. Taback and assess his alleged emotional

injuries. (J.L. at 3-4.) The proposed examination would consist of a three-hour standard psychiatric

interview with Dr. Leahy and would also include a mental status examination. Id. at 4. Allstate

believes this assessment and examination is necessary because Mr. Taback is seeking special

damages for emotional distress, which is in excess of $500,000. Id. Mrs. Taback testified that her

husband continues to suffer severe depression and has contemplated suicide twice in the last several

weeks. Id. Since Mr. Taback has placed his mental condition in controversy by claiming Allstate's

handling of his claim caused him to contemplate suicide and suffer depression, Allstate claims to be

entitled to test his claim through a mental examination as set forth under Rule 35. Id. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35(a) permits a court to compel a party to submit to a mental

examination by a suitably licensed or certified examiner when that party's mental condition is in

controversy. Fed. Rule. Civ. Pro. 35(a) The order may be made only on motion for good cause

shown, and notice to the person to be examined and all parties, specifying time, place, manner,

conditions, and scope of the examination and the person or persons by whom it is to be made. Id. 

Here, Mr. Taback is seeking damages for emotional distress. According to Mrs. Meyers, Mr. Taback

has had multiple traumatic events in the past two and half years. (Decl. of Terry Meyers ¶ 3.) Mr.

Taback is struggling with depression over the loss of his job and with the loss of his home in the fire.

Id. He is experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder due to the stress of the legal proceedings,

anticipation of videotape deposition, and retelling of the details surrounding the fire. Id. Based on

the information provided to the court, it appears that Mr. Taback is experiencing some type of

emotional disturbance. It appears that Allstate has met its burden by showing that Mr. Taback's

mental condition is in controversy. Allstate is entitled to explore whether the emotional distress

stems from their alleged action or other stressful events that occurred in Mr. Taback's life. 

Therefore, the court finds good cause exists for the examination. 

Plaintiffs, however, claim that Mr. Taback cannot be subjected to a mental examination

Case 3:05-cv-04057-MEJ Document 97 Filed 09/14/06 Page 3 of 5
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 4

because he is no longer a party to the suit. For support, Plaintiffs rely on Fed. Rule. Civ. Pro. 35 and

Scharf v. United States Attorney General (9th Cir. 1979) 597 F.2d 1240, 1243-1244. 

In Scharf v. United States Attorney General (9th Cir. 1979), a father brought suit for

declaratory judgment of United States citizenship under the Immigration and Nationality Act for his

minor daughter who was born in Mexico. Id. at 1242. Under Rule 35, the government sought 

blood samples from both parents for paternity purposes. Id. at 1243. The appellate court held that

the court's authority to order a physical examination under Rule 35 was limited to the minor child

only. Id. 

Rule 35 provides for an extension of the rule to apply to a parent or guardian who is suing to

recover for injuries. See Scharf v. U.S. Attorney General at 1244. The Advisory Committee Notes of

Rule 35 states "the amendment will settle beyond doubt that a parent or guardian suing to recover for

injuries to a minor may be ordered to produce the minor for examination. (Advisory Committee

Notes, 1970 Adoption.) The Scharf court acknowledged this extension and limited its application.

See Scharf v. U.S. Attorney General at 1244. "It is intended to apply where a parent or guardian is

suing to recover for injuries to a minor." Id. Here, the parties have stipulated to dismiss Mr. Taback

from the suit. However, Mr. Taback has assigned all his rights to Mrs. Taback. In effect, Mrs.

Taback is seeking damages on Mr. Taback's behalf. Rule 35 equally applies to guardians. Mrs.

Taback is acting as Mr. Taback's guardian because she is seeking damages on his behalf. Therefore,

the court finds that Scharf is inapplicable to the case at hand. Furthermore, nowhere in Rule 35 does

it state that Mr. Taback cannot be subjected to a mental examination. The court finds that the

extension of Rule 35 applies. 

CONCLUSION

The court hereby ORDERS the following:

1.) Mr. Taback to submit to a deposition, where he can be questioned about the events that

occurred on the day of the fire. 

2.) Mr. Taback's deposition should not be videotaped.

Case 3:05-cv-04057-MEJ Document 97 Filed 09/14/06 Page 4 of 5
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 5

3.) Mrs. Taback shall be allowed to accompany Mr. Taback to his deposition.

4.) The parties shall work together to ensure Mrs. Meyers is available to see Mr. Taback

immediately following the deposition. 

5.) Mr. Taback shall submit to a mental examination. Allstate is entitled to use a suitably

licensed or certified examiner to conduct the examination. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2006 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04057-MEJ Document 97 Filed 09/14/06 Page 5 of 5