Legal Document

379 U.S. 104 85 Supreme Court Reporter 234 13 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 152 Robert L. SCHLAGENHAUF, Petitioner,v.Cale Judge HOLDER, District for the Southern of Indiana. Number 8. Argued Oct. 13, 1964. Decided Nov. 23, [Syllabus from pages 104-106 intentionally omitted] S. Smith, Indianapolis, Ind., petitioner. Erle Atlantic Kightlinger, respondent. Mr. Justice GOLDBERG, delivered opinion Court. 1 This case involves validity and construction Rule 35(a) Federal Rules Civil Procedure as applied to examination a defendant in negligence action. provides: 2 'Physical Mental Examination Persons. (a) Order Examination. In an action which mental or physical condition party is controversy, court pending may order him submit by physician. The be made only on motion good cause shown upon notice examined all other parties shall specify time, place, manner, conditions, scope person persons whom it made.' I. 3 An based diversity citizenship was brought seeking damages arising personal injuries suffered passengers bus collided with rear tractor-trailer. named defendants were Greyhound Corporation, owner bus; petitioner, Schlagenhauf, driver; Contract Carriers, Inc., tractor; Joseph McCorkhill, driver tractor;1 National Lead Company, trailer. Answers filed each denying negligence. 4 then cross-claimed against Carriers damage Greyhound's bus, alleging that collision due solely their tractor-trailer driven at unreasonably low speed, had not remained its lane, equipped proper lights. answer this cross-claim asserting '(t)hat * (petitioner Schlagenhauf) proximately caused contributed damages.' 5 Pursuant pretrial order, letter—which trial treated as, we consider be, part answer—alleging Schlagenhauf 'not mentally physically capable' driving time accident. 6 petitioned directing petitioner both examinations one specialist following fields: 7 (1) Internal medicine; 8 (2) Ophthalmology; 9 (3) Neurology; 10 (4) Psychiatry. 11 For purpose offering choice field, petition recommended two specialists internal medicine, ophthalmology, psychiatry, respectively, three neurology—a total nine physicians. alleged 'in controversy' been raised Carriers' cross-claim. supported brief legal authorities affidavit attorney stating seen red lights 15 seconds before accident, another witness trailer distance three-quarters one-half mile, involved prior 12 certified record indicates petitioner's attorneys opposition asserting, among things, 'the herein sense these words are used 35 Procedure; (and) has multiple prayed cross-defendant *.'2 While disposition pending, itself 'cross-claimed' asserted generally Schlagenhauf's additionally negligent 14 '(b)y permitting said operated over public highway defendant, when Corporation knew eyes vision (sic) impaired deficient.' Court, basis without any hearing, ordered examinations—one specialists—despite fact clearly requested four examinations.3 16 Petitioner writ mandamus Appeals respondent, Judge, have set aside requiring his examinations. denied mandamus, judge dissenting, 321 Reporter, 2nd 43. 17 We granted certiorari review undecided questions concerning 35. 375 983, 84 516, 471. II. 18 A threshold problem arises mandamus. Although disputed jurisdiction judgment Appeals. 28 Code KF62 § 1254(1) (1958 ed.), respondent urges below dismissing affirmed ground appropriate remedy. 19 'The traditional use aid appellate common law federal courts4 confine inferior lawful exercise prescribed *,' Roche versus Evaporated Milk Ass'n, 319 21, 26, 63 938, 941, 87 L.Ed. 1185. 20 It is, course, well settled, substitute appeal, Ex parte Fahey, 332 258, 259 260, 67 1558, 1559, 91 2041, even though hardship result delay perhaps unnecessary trial, Bankers Life & Casualty company Holland, 346 379, 382—383, 74 145, 147 148, 98 106; Alkali Export Association States, 325 196, 202—203, 65 1120, 1124, 89 1554; supra, U.S., 31, S.Ct., 944. appropriately issued, however, there 'usurpation judicial power' clear abuse discretion, 383, 148. 21 Here basic allegation lack power district defendant. That issue substantial underscored challenged appears first kind reported decision courts under 35,5 found such modern state courts.6 recognized basic, question whether could agree that, unusual circumstances light authorities, power. 22 also if gives case, here exceeded ordering no 'good cause' shown, expressly required As read opinion, reached determined adversely 51. did not, reach cause,' apparently considering do so mandamus.7 Ibid. 23 recognize ordinary situation where sole presented court's determination examination, remedy, absent, discretion. See Here, properly usurpation impression called application new context. meaning 35's requirements issues impression. our view, should also, special circumstances, issue, avoid piecemeal litigation settle important problems. 24 Thus believe determine mandamus.8 Normally, wise administration would counsel remand reconsider cause.' However, instance concerns Procedure. thus us merits formulate necessary guidelines area. Van Dusen Barrack, 376 612, 805, 945. stated Los Angeles Brush Mfg. James, 272 701, 706, 47 286, 288, 71 481: 25 '(W)e think subject enforcement rules duty put force deal directly *.' 26 McCullough Cosgrave, 309 634, 60 703, 992. 27 say, setting future error applying particular makes most claimed erred ruling matters within jurisdiction.' Parr 351 513, 520, 76 912, 917, 100 1377; see 382, 147. III. face applies 'parties,' normal reading include contends, unconstitutional invasion privacy, or, least, modification substantive rights existing adoption beyond congressional mandate Enabling Act.9 29 These same contentions Sibbach Wilson Co., 312 1, 61 422, 479, plaintiff who injury recovery. closely divided vote, sustained applied. Both majority dissenting opinions, agreed assailed constitutional grounds. Id., 11—12, 17, 425—426, 428. division procedural rights. held regulation procedure Act—the dissenters deemed substantive. does challenge holding plaintiffs. He extended defendants. can distinction. Discovery 'is one-way proposition.' Hickman Taylor, 329 495, 507, 385, 391, 451. Issues cannot resolved doctrine favoring class litigants another. 30 insofar cases show, type discovery plaintiffs, some early seem proceeded theory seeks redress thereby 'waives' right claim inviolability person.10 31 decided 'waiver' theory. Roberts, majority, stated, injured one's another's negligence, infraction present brought.' 426. dissenters, Frankfurter pointed out '(o)f course compulsive doors otherwise open shut examination.' 18, 32 statements demonstrate invalidity waiver chain events leading ultimate begins plaintiff, involuntary act part. Seeking just step chain. If prevented deterred redress, loss forced extent defending 33 Moreover, rationalization mean waived exercising access courts. Such might create Also, espoused, problems arise originally (where equivalent 35) removed court. 34 hold 35, either plaintiffs action, free difficulty Act. therefore apply case. IV. There remains enter premise 'that deposition-discovery accorded broad liberal treatment,' 392, effectuate 'civil trials longer need carried dark.' 501, 389. 36 contends defendants, must, nevertheless he relation Lead—the movants examinations—at sought.11 general proposition, sought must opposing vis-a -vis movant (or least them). F.2d, 49. case,12 view gave unduly restrictive interpretation term. requires 'action,' movant. doubt 'party' 'action' virtue original complaint. Therefore, permitted (a defendant) (codefendants), provided, met. Insistence pleading undesirable proliferation cross-claims counterclaims keeping aims liberal, nontechnical Rules. 500—501, 388—389. 37 sought, went become second entered rule. identical material respects first, supplementary petitions Carriers. examinations, except controversy cross-claim, subsequent filing intervened between orders, accept, purposes it13 juncture test. 38 next express terms 39 devices sanctioned Part V taking oral written depositions (Rules 32), interrogatories (Rule 33), production documents 34), 35). limited 26(b)'s provision deponent regarding matter, privileged, relevant matter action' (emphasis added), provisions 30(b) court, motion, limit, terminate, control prevent bad faith undue 'annoyance, embarrassment, oppression.' 40 notable, none restriction controversy,' requirement affirmatively 41 additional reviewed Chief Sobeloff Guilford Bank Greensboro Ry. 297 921, 924 (C.A.4th Cir.), words: 42 'Subject (the restrictions 26(b) (d)), take serve sanction knowledge what doing. Only refuses belief irrelevant, moving request answer. 43 'Significantly, freedom afforded resorts interrogatories, proceeding Instead, decide initial every requesting making adequately demonstrates cause. specific meaningless sufficiently established merely showing desired materials relevant, relevancy standard already imposed 26(b). Thus, adding '* indicate greater than rules.' 44 appeals cases14 34's good-cause mere formality, but plainly expressed limitation Rule. obviously true They met conclusory allegations pleadings—nor relevance case—but require affirmative really genuinely exists examination. Obviously, ability obtain information means relevant. 45 therefore, discriminating judge, decide, demonstrated existence Rule's requirements, recognized, necessarily related. prove meet Nor evidentiary hearing cases. cases, affidavits usual methods short hearing. mean, though, produce sufficient information, whatever means, fulfill function mandated 46 Of situations pleadings alone requirements. asserts injury, cf. places provides injury. equally defense claim, example, insanity divorce Richardson Richardson, 124 Colo. 240, 236 Pacific 121. Roberts 198 Md. 299, 82 120; Condition Before Trial, J.Am.Jud.Soc. (1934). assert support claim. His placed parties. principles discussed above, make requested. This, shows, they failed do. 48 relating statement 'Schlagenhauf capable operating' accident Lead's 49 attorney's attached provided: 50 'That deposition admitted saw semi-tractor unit yet drove vehicle reducing speed altering thereof. 51 eye-witness known affiant testified immediately impact truck approaching mile 52 (prior) similar end collision. *' 53 corrected specialties neurology, psychiatry.15 Nothing afford suffering neurological illness warranting wide-ranging psychiatric anything justifying medicine examination.16 54 'eyes vision' impaired. Considering conjunction affidavit, hesitant visual ordered.17 remanded because ordered, forth opinion. 55 liberally construed, expanded disregarding limitations. very apparent sweeping into own automatically accidents—and charge lodged. limitations To routinely automobile cases.18 plain language precludes untoward result. 56 Accordingly, vacated formulated further proceedings conformity 57 Vacated remanded. 58 BLACK, CLARK joins, concurring 59 N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions 35(a): precisely lawsuit; obtaining health case; 'may shown' after 'notice parties.' Unlike shows him, unless failure deny amounted admission true. papers connection informal, lawsuit specifically unequivocally charged operating motor collision, operation resulting damage. along four-lane weather, come down road front him. displaying visible half seeing them. Yet coming sight continued straight line, slowing down, full until struck once before. never now charges deficient. like one, evidence eyesight affect drive highest relevance. obvious, think, continues smashes although ample room chances physical, moral defect. When thing happens twice, more likely ask, 'What driver? Is blind crazy?' Plainly controversy.' holds rest court-ordered Schlagenhauf. says reference 'conclusory.' thought strange about being 'conclusory'—that function, since attempted simple complicated redundant ones long kept common-law disrepute. base 35(a), particularly technical objection himself bad. enough show probable justify dissent Court's justified record, broader required. arguments 16, 427, people law. By reasoning great restraint administering enacted, approved. reason remanding give chooses, opportunity facts refashioning will neither too nor narrow theirs. 62 DOUGLAS, join reversing judgment, would, remand, relief asked 64 suppose licensed car suffer ailment, ulcers, eyesight, abnormal blood pressure, deafness, liver malfunction, bursitis, rheumatism, not. she turned plaintiff's doctors psychoanalysts discover mishap, door opened grave miscarriages justice. defendant's examine normally interested answering single question: sustain claimed? But naturally inclined go fishing expedition search tend unfit perform acts resulted And doctor fee easily something wrong patient—a prejudiced medical Once clinics analysis well-being psyche, effective jury. lawyers those stop probing organ halt inquiry, object line questioning. sit arbiter. psychiatrist holiday privacy office. doctor's phychiatrist's) mercy; report overawe confuse jury fair trial. came submission compulsory Congress authorized rule effect. accept point governed stare decisis. claims 'mental condition' governs suing puts hands provide recover permits inquiry nature condition. 66 suit. negligent. issue; questioned various used. balk saying suit addition few said, decree conceal difficult proof makes. dragged there; find 'inviolability person' (Union R. Botsford, 141 250, 252, 1000, 1001, 734) reality. Neither up today whose during surrender keep inviolate. did, according Sibbach, choose purse; lost historic immunity. authorize suited carefully drawn potential blackmail. 68 Advisory Committee October 1955 Report Proposed Amendments Courts proposed broadened relationship' party, 'of agent custody party,' adopt form. concededly concerned exposed. needs, my exposure safeguards provided awful risks blackmail exist breadth. 69 refer Judicial Conference libel, contract cases—the standards conditions precise. instant psychiatrists? Kropp General Dynamics Corp., D.C., 202 F.Supp. 207; Buffalo L.Rev. 623 (1964). Lines drawn; better draw them initially. 70 HARLAN, dissenting. lies squared decisions pays lip service. Ante, Pages 109-110. recognizes, extraordinary writs, available correct involve tantamount thereto, 'a discretion'; appeal.' 72 Mandamus remedy instance, so, inquire issues, 'power,' 'first impression' 'these circumstances' 'so problems.' Page 111. 73 me unacceptable. confronted premises proceed awaiting embodiment final issuing why issue. exist, acted limit power, denied. know suggests appeals' interlocutory stage draws questions—here 'incontroversy' issues—which examinable writ. Indeed, lacked reached. And, correctly states, 'hardship trial,' ante, 110, factor issuance Manifestly, today's holding, stripped sugar-coating, born exposed rigors 'guidelines' tribunal. Understandable indulged expense deep inroad firmly policy which, exceptions,1 judgments sure pains warn done 'interlocutory' questions. 112. Nevertheless, hard escape conclusion writs test impression,' geared 'power' such, seems 'finality,' respect Congress, wisely willing cautious exceptions.2 75 having concluded, agree, discretion acting, lower quite affirm basis. McCorkhill joined simplicity, referred renewed 'Objections Brief' described note After reduce number moot. together consideration application, requires. 119—122, infra. 1651(a) ed.): Act respective jurisdictions agreeable usages law.' Dinsel Pennsylvania 144 880 (D.C.W.D.Pa.), considered facts, declined Harabedian Superior 195 Cal.App.2d Cal.Rptr. 420, American Law Reports, 994 (Dist.Ct.App.). Kiley, J., dissented point, concluding disclosed 'no adequate basis' 52. refusal writ, reversible error. La Buy Howes Leather 352 249, 77 309, 315—316, 290; supra; Moore, Practice, 54.10(4) (1953 ed.). 2072 'shall abridge, enlarge modify discussion Wigmore, Evidence, 2220 (McNaughton Rev. ed. 1961). Ohlinger's Practice 490 (1964 out, 106—108, petition, complaint Lead. Greyhound, distinguished party. wording Rule, reinforced approved Committee's amendment 'an party.' Procedure, Amendments, 41—43 (1955). extent, any, term includes 'real interest' Cf. Beach Beach, App.D.C. 318, 114 131 804. 3, thereafter third reduced Hauger Chicago, R.I. Pac. 216 501 (C.A.7th Cir.); Martin Capital Transit 83 U.S.App.D.C. 239, 170 811; Mitchell Bass, 252 513 (C.A.8th Williams Continental Oil 215 (C.A.10th Alltmont 177 971 (C.A.3d Cir.). supra. compliance delineate 'conditions, scope' broad, areas. physician extend things tests, electrocardiograms, gastro-intestinal X-ray conceive how possible compared Laubscher Blake, 376, 836 From July 1963, through June 30, 1964, almost 10,000 Administrative Office Courts, Annual Director, C2 Nation large approximately 11,500,000 accidents, involving 20,000,000 drivers. Safety Council, Accident Facts, See, e.g., §§ 1292(a)(1), (b)

Classification Label: 8