Grogan v. Beale Aero Club et al

Filing 69

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 2/17/2017 DENYING the defendant's Request for Audio Recording without prejudice; ORDERING the defendant to submit to the Court and to the plaintiff's counsel by 2/23/2017, a supplemental declaration from Dr. Rosenberg outlining his clinical and/or diagnostic reasons for having the mental examination audio recorded, along with a statement indicating whether defendant objects to having such audio recording provided to the plaintiff� 39;s expert(s); ALTERNATIVELY ORDERING the defendant to notify the plaintiff's counsel by 2/23/2017, if it elects not to pursue audio recording of the examination; ORDERING the plaintiff to file a brief in response to said supplemental declaration by 2/28/2107. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES M. GROGAN,

12
13
14

No. 2:15-cv-0562-JAM-KJN

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

15
16

Defendant.

17
18

On February 16, 2017, the court, pursuant to the parties’ request, conducted an informal

19

telephonic discovery conference in this matter. At the conference, attorneys Bradley Wahrlich

20

and Kristoffer Mayfield appeared on behalf of plaintiff, and attorneys Debra Fowler and William

21

Adams appeared on behalf of defendant. After review of the parties’ joint statement and further

22

discussion with the parties at the conference, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

23

1. Defendant’s request to permit defendant’s expert, Dr. James Rosenberg, to make an

24

audio recording of plaintiff’s mental examination is DENIED WITHOUT

25

PREJUDICE.

26

2. No later than February 23, 2017, defendant may submit to the court and plaintiff’s

27

counsel a supplemental declaration from Dr. Rosenberg outlining his clinical and/or

28

diagnostic reasons for having the mental examination audio recorded, along with a
1

1

statement indicating whether defendant objects to having such audio recording

2

provided to plaintiff’s expert(s).1 If defendant so objects, defendant shall also submit

3

limited briefing in support of that objection not to exceed two (2) pages.

4

Alternatively, if defendant elects to not pursue audio recording of the examination,

5

defendant shall notify plaintiff’s counsel and the court no later than February 23, 2017.

6

3. No later than February 28, 2017, plaintiff shall file briefing in response to any

7

supplemental declaration from Dr. Rosenberg and any briefing submitted by

8

defendant, not to exceed four (4) pages.

9

4. Thereafter, the matter will be submitted for decision. If the court subsequently

10

determines that additional briefing or another telephonic conference is necessary, the

11

parties will be notified.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 17, 2017

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

As the court indicated at the conference, if the court ultimately permits an audio recording of the
examination to be made to assist Dr. Rosenberg in his examination, the court is strongly inclined
to not allow such recording to be shared with counsel for either side or to allow a transcript of the
recording to be prepared. However, as discussed above, the court is prepared to entertain limited
briefing as to whether such an audio recording should be provided to plaintiff’s expert(s) as part
of the materials supporting defendant’s expert’s opinion.
2