Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00770/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00770-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
County of San Joaquin
Defendant
Stephanie Evans
Defendant
Victor Rodriguez
Plaintiff
Lynn K. Saga-Matsumoto
Defendant
San Joaquin County Human Services Agency
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 1

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF

VINCENT W. DAVIS (State Bar Number: 125399) 

ERI DIAZ AGUILAR (State Bar Number: 349578)

LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT W. DAVIS & ASSOCIATES

440 E. Huntington Drive Avenue, Suite 100 

Arcadia, California 91006

Telephone: (626) 446-6442

v.davis@vincentwdavis.com

eri@vincentwdavis.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

VICTOR RODRIGUEZ

DANA A. SUNTAG (State Bar Number: 125127)

JOSHUA J. STEVENS (State Bar Number: 238105)

HERUM\CRABTREE\SUNTAG, LLP

5757 Pacific Avenue, Suite 222

Stockton, California 95207

Telephone: (209) 472-7700

dsuntag@herumcrabtree.com

jstevens@herumcrabtree.com

Attorneys for Defendant

STEPHANIE EVANS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTOR RODRIGUEZ, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN by and 

through the SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY 

HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY; 

STEPHANIE EVANS, an individual; LYNN 

K. SAGA-MATSUMOTO, an individual,

and DOES 1 through 9, 

 

 Defendants.

Case No. 2:16-cv-00770-TLN-JDP

STIPULATION REGARDING MENTAL 

EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF; 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

[No Hearing Requested]

Case 2:16-cv-00770-TLN-JDP Document 75 Filed 12/09/24 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

BURKE, WILLIAMS & STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: DEFENSE MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF

SORENS

All parties, through their undersigned counsel of record, stipulate as follows:

R E C I T A L S

A. On April 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 

regarding the termination of his alleged parental rights to the minor child “A.R.” through a 

dependency proceeding in the San Joaquin County Dependency Court.

B. Plaintiff claims the termination of his parental rights caused him severe 

emotional distress and he is seeking emotional distress damages. Accordingly, Plaintiff

has put his mental and emotional state and need for medical, psychiatric, and 

psychological care directly at issue in this action.

C. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35(a)(1) authorizes the Court, in an action 

where the Plaintiff’s mental condition is in controversy, to order the Plaintiff to submit to a 

mental examination. 

S T I P U L A T I O N

1. The mental examinations will consist of a psychological evaluation to be 

conducted by Sarah Hall, Ph.D., and a psychiatric evaluation to be conducted by David 

Kan, M.D.

2. Copies of Dr. Hall and Dr. Kan’s CVs are attached as Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2, 

respectively.

3. The mental examinations will take place in multiple sessions no longer than 

six hours per session for a maximum of two sessions. The first session, of psychological 

testing, will be conducted by Dr. Hall and will take place on January 14, 2025, starting at 

9:00 a.m. The second session will be a psychiatric examination conducted by Dr. Kan and 

will take place on January 21, 2025, starting at 10:00 a.m. All sessions of testing and 

examination will be conducted remotely via Zoom or other secure videoconferencing 

software.

4. Plaintiff’s mental examinations will be conducted for the purpose of 

determining, evaluating, and assessing Plaintiff's mental condition, claims of emotional 

injury or distress, and the cause or causes thereof. Plaintiff’s claims of continuing, ongoing,

Case 2:16-cv-00770-TLN-JDP Document 75 Filed 12/09/24 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

BURKE, WILLIAMS & STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: DEFENSE MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF

SORENS

or permanent injury or distress, if any, will be within the scope of the examinations, 

including any claims for future care.

5. Plaintiff shall not be questioned about privileged communications with 

counsel.

6. There will be no duplication of testing or examination between Dr. Hall’s 

psychological testing and Dr. Kan’s psychiatric examination. 

7. Plaintiff will timely prepare and complete written testing documents, in 

addition to an intake sheet and background information forms, as required and instructed 

by Drs. Hall and Kan.

8. Plaintiff’s mental examination will not involve a physical examination or any 

painful, protracted, or unduly invasive procedures.

9. Dr. Hall’s testing will use psychological tests carefully selected to evaluate 

the nature and scope of the alleged mental/emotional damages. The specific tests to be 

used in the examination will be drawn from the following commonly used and well-accepted 

psychological tests which may include: 

a. Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2), 

b. Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) 

c. Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms, 2nd Edition (SIRS-2)

10. Dr. Kan’s psychiatric examination of Plaintiff will include: the taking of the 

Plaintiff’s personal and family history; medical and psychiatric history; educational and work 

history; social, marital, relationship, and recreational history; a substance use history; a 

legal history; a history of the incidents resulting in the claims of psychological and/or 

emotional injuries and/or distress; a history of the changes over time in Plaintiff’s 

psychological and/or emotional signs or symptoms since the onset of any psychological or 

emotional distress allegedly connected with the incident(s); the extent to which any such 

psychological and/or emotional signs or symptoms interfere with Plaintiff’s daily 

functioning; the history of any such interference over time; the psychological and/or 

emotional condition of Plaintiff as of the date of the evaluation; the relationship, if any, 

Case 2:16-cv-00770-TLN-JDP Document 75 Filed 12/09/24 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

BURKE, WILLIAMS & STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: DEFENSE MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF

SORENS

between the nature and intensity of any psychological and/or emotional signs or symptoms 

related to the claimed incident(s); any prior, contemporaneous, or subsequent experience 

of any psychological and/or emotional predisposing and/or distressing events in the 

individual’s life; Plaintiff’s usual daily schedule as of the time of the evaluation; whether 

Plaintiff evidences a need for psychiatric and/or psychological counseling or psychotropic 

medication for the alleviation or relief of any psychological or emotional signs or symptoms 

or any interference in daily functioning that might be connected with the incident(s); a 

detailed account of the events Plaintiff claims were the cause of his emotional damages; 

and Plaintiff’s prognosis for the future. The examination will also include a mental status 

examination to evaluate his mood, speech, thought processes, and other mental functions.

11. Plaintiff will attend the examinations by Dr. Hall by Zoom or other secure 

videoconferencing software. During the examination, Plaintiff will be physically present at 

California Deposition Reporters, 2453 Grand Canal Boulevard, Suite J, Stockton, California 

95207. California Deposition Reporters will provide Plaintiff the written testing materials 

prepared by Dr. Hall and all equipment necessary to attend the examination by Zoom, 

including a computer, monitor, microphone, webcam, and internet access. A court reporter 

will not report the examinations.

12. For the examination by Dr. Kan, Plaintiff can choose either to be physically 

at home (as long as it is a quiet location with no one else present and a reliable internet 

connection), or at California Deposition Reporters’ offices. The default location will be 

Plaintiff’s home, and defense counsel will provide the Zoom link information to Plaintiff’s 

counsel no later than seven days before the scheduled examination. If Plaintiff elects to 

participate in the examination by Dr. Kan at the offices of the California Deposition 

Reporters, Plaintiff’s counsel will inform opposing counsel in writing no later than seven

days before the scheduled examination. 

13. No one will record any portions of the examinations by audio or video.

14. Only Dr. Kan, Dr. Hall, and Plaintiff will be present (via video conferencing 

software) during the examinations. No one else (including without limitation Plaintiff’s 

Case 2:16-cv-00770-TLN-JDP Document 75 Filed 12/09/24 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

BURKE, WILLIAMS & STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: DEFENSE MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF

SORENS

counsel, Defendants’ counsel, any representative of Drs. Kan or Hall, or any of Plaintiff’s 

friends, family members, acquaintances, or representatives or agents) may be present 

(either physically or electronically, such as, for example, by phone or video) during the 

examinations. California Deposition Reporters staff may assist with the video conferencing 

software, but they will not be present in the room Plaintiff is in during the examination.

15. The parties agree that Sarah Hall, Ph.D., will provide a copy of the actual 

tests completed by Plaintiff, only to a psychologist expert retained by Plaintiff with 

demonstrated in-depth training and expertise in the administration and interpretation of 

psychological tests. 

16. Plaintiff shall be entitled, upon his request, for breaks as needed during these 

sessions.

17. If Plaintiff fails to appear as scheduled without providing at least 48 hours’ 

advance written notice to defense counsel, Plaintiff will be responsible for the applicable

cancellation fees of $725 per hour for a three-hour duration for Dr. Hall for each scheduled 

session and $850 per hour for a three-hour duration for Dr. Kan for each scheduled 

session.

Respectfully Submitted,

Dated: December 5, 2024 HERUM CRABTREE SUNTAG, LLP

By: /s/ Joshua J. Stevens

DANA A. SUNTAG

JOSHUA J. STEVENS

Attorneys for all Defendants

Dated December 5, 2024 LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT W. DAVIS 

& ASSOCIATES

By: /s/ Eri Diaz Aguilar____________

VINCENT W. DAVIS

ERI DIAZ AGUILAR

 Attorneys for Plaintiff

VICTOR RODRIGUEZ

Case 2:16-cv-00770-TLN-JDP Document 75 Filed 12/09/24 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

BURKE, WILLIAMS & STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: DEFENSE MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF

SORENS

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION

Pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 131(e), I attest that I obtained 

authorization to place Plaintiff’s counsel’s e-signature on this document and to file this 

document with the Court.

By: /s/ - Joshua J. Stevens_

Joshua J. Stevens

[PROPOSED] ORDER

The Court, having considered the parties’ Stipulation, and good cause appearing, 

rules as follows: the relief the parties’ Stipulation requests is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 9, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00770-TLN-JDP Document 75 Filed 12/09/24 Page 6 of 6