Wagnon, et al v Rocklin Unified School District, et al
Filing
47
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 08/30/22 GRANTING 39 Motion to Compel(Licea Chavez, V)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ALICIA WAGNON, et al.,
12
Plaintiffs,
13
14
v.
ROCKLIN U.S.D., et al.,
15
No. 2:17–cv–1666–KJN
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
COMPEL IME
(ECF No. 39.)
Defendants.
16
Presently before the court is defendants’ motion to compel an independent medical
17
18
examination under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35. 1 (ECF No. 39.) Defendants contend
19
plaintiff From has put his mental condition at issue by claiming damages for the emotional,
20
educational, and psychological injuries caused by defendants, and good cause exists for the IME.
21
Plaintiffs do not appear to dispute that From’s mental condition is at issue, but instead cite a
22
number of reasons why good cause is lacking, including the remoteness of the exam, the proposed
23
locations, the lack of qualifications of the expert, and the availability of the information from
24
other sources. (ECF No. 45.)
For the reasons stated at the hearing on August 30, 2022, the court GRANTS defendants’
25
26
27
28
motion and sets certain conditions for the exam, as described below.
1
This case proceeds before the undersigned on the consent of all parties to the jurisdiction of a
magistrate judge per 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). (See ECF Nos. 23, 24.)
1
1
Background
2
Plaintiffs allege that in 2016, a Rocklin U.S.D. bus driver created a hostile environment
3
that resulted in bruising and emotional regression in plaintiff From’s education and mental health.
4
Plaintiffs raise claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the
5
Rehabilitation Act, and California law (Battery, Negligence, Negligent Supervision, Unruh and
6
Bane Acts). Damages alleged include emotional distress, pain and suffering, and medical
7
expenses. Plaintiff From has significant intellectual and physical disabilities, so his mother Alice
8
Wagnon acts as his conservator for this suit. (See ECF No. 1.)
9
Plaintiffs filed this case in 2017, and between 2017-2021, the court considered two rounds
10
of defendants’ motions to dismiss before defendants filed an answer. (See ECF No. 23.)
11
Thereafter, the parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge for all purposes and the
12
case was reassigned. (ECF No. 24.) The undersigned entered a scheduling order setting the close
13
of fact discovery for September 2, 2022, expert discovery for December 16, 2022, and law and
14
motion for March 16, 2023. (ECF No. 28.)
15
During the course of discovery, plaintiff Wagnon’s responses to certain interrogatories
16
identified 17 symptoms she said began after the bus driver’s alleged actions, and a 2017 report
17
from plaintiffs’ psychological expert Dr. Baladerian cites these symptoms in her analysis. (See
18
ECF No. 39; see also ECF No. 41 at Ex. A and B and sealed event at ECF No. 44.) Based on
19
these facts, defendants seek permission for their expert, psychiatrist Dr. Greene, to conduct an
20
independent medical examination of From. (ECF No. 39.) Plaintiffs opposed, and the matter was
21
set for an August 30, 2022 hearing before the undersigned. (Id.)
22
Legal Standards
23
Fed. R. Civ. P. 35 grants a party the ability to have a physical or mental examination
24
conducted by a “suitably licensed or certified examiner” on “a party whose mental or physical
25
condition . . . is in controversy.” “This means, for example, ‘that a parent or guardian suing to
26
recover for injuries to a minor may be ordered to produce the minor for examination.’” Sali v.
27
Corona Regional Medical Center, 884 F.3d 1218, 1223 (9th Cir. 2018), quoting FRCP 35 advisory
28
committee's note to 1970 amendment. Courts often order plaintiffs claiming emotional distress
2
1
damages to undergo an IME when one or more of the following factors exist: “(1) the complaint
2
includes a claim for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff
3
alleges a specific mental or psychiatric injury or disorder; (3) the plaintiff claims unusually severe
4
emotional distress; (4) plaintiff offers expert testimony to support the claim of emotional distress;
5
or (5) the plaintiff concedes that her mental condition is ‘in controversy’ for purposes of Rule
6
35.” J.M. v. County of Stanislaus, 2019 WL 6879676 at *8, (E.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2019).
7
The exam must happen by court order on good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a)(2)(A). “Good
8
cause” factors that courts have considered include the possibility of obtaining desired information
9
by other means, whether plaintiff plans to prove his claim through testimony of expert witnesses,
10
whether the desired materials are relevant, and whether plaintiff is claiming ongoing emotional
11
distress. Halliday v. Spjute, 2015 WL 3988903, *2 (E.D. Cal. June 30, 2015 AWI-GSA) (citing
12
Turner v. Imperial Stores, 161 F.R.D. 89, 97-98 (S.D. Cal. 1995) (expert testimony); Ragge v.
13
MCA/Universal Studios, 165 F.R.D. 605, 608 (C.D. Cal. 1995) (ongoing emotional distress);
14
Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 118-19 (1964) (availability by other means).
15
If an examination is ordered, Rule 35 requires the court order “specify the time, place,
16
manner, conditions, and scope of the examination, as well as the person or persons who will
17
perform it.” “Courts have discretion in setting appropriate conditions for a physical or mental
18
examination depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.” Newman v. San Joaquin
19
Delta Community College District, 272 F.R.D. 505, 511 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2011).
20
Parties’ Arguments
21
At its core, defendants contend Dr. Greene should be allowed to conduct the IME in order
22
to level the playing field. Defendants note that the complaint places From’s mental state at issue,
23
good cause exists for the exam, and they are willing to stipulate to certain protections for
24
plaintiffs so as not to traumatize Mr. From. Defendants argue that without a counter expert they
25
will be unfairly prejudiced, as plaintiffs can present Dr. Balderian’s testimony, but defendants
26
would have no similar support for their defenses. (ECF No. 39.)
27
28
Plaintiffs contend good cause is lacking, noting From is now 24 years old, is non-verbal,
cannot read or write, and has the cognitive abilities of an 18 month to 2-year-old child. Plaintiffs
3
1
argue that because From’s symptoms have mostly resolved given the amount of time that has
2
passed, because of From’s limited cognitive abilities, and because he is no longer in the same
3
routine as he was back in 2017, it is unlikely Dr. Greene’s exam will yield any fruitful
4
information. Plaintiffs also challenge whether Dr. Greene is qualified, that despite his
5
“impressive resume,” noting he has no experience working with individuals with significant
6
cognitive abilities who are also non-verbal. Finally, plaintiffs contend there are other avenues for
7
defendants to obtain the information they seek, including examining the numerous documents
8
already in possession by the school district (IEP plans, health records, and the like), the
9
information gleaned from defendants’ deposition of Wagnon, and any interviews defendants
10
could conduct with their own employees. Thus, plaintiffs contend that “given the unique
11
circumstances,” no good cause exists for the court to order the IME. (See ECF No. 45.)
12
Analysis – At Issue and Good Cause
13
At the outset, the court finds plaintiffs have put From’s mental state at issue, given the fact
14
that they plan to produce their expert Dr. Balderian to support their damages claim and given
15
plaintiffs appear to concede this point. See, e.g., J.M., 2019 WL 6879676 at *8. Turning to good
16
cause, the court is sensitive to plaintiffs’ arguments, but on the whole agrees with defendants’
17
contentions and finds good cause for the IME.
18
Plaintiffs’ main concern appears to concern the fruitfulness of any exam. As discussed at
19
the hearing, the court is well aware of the potential that Dr. Greene may not uncover any lasting
20
emotional trauma, given that 6 years have passed since the alleged incident. However, plaintiff
21
Wagnon does not specifically state that From’s trauma has completely resolved, but instead states
22
the symptoms “appear to have resolved after approximately 3 years with occasional flareups still
23
continuing.” (See ECF No. 44, Ex. A, *8 (emphasis added).) Wagnon also recognizes that From
24
has not been asked or required to face defendant since the incident. Thus, it is possible Dr.
25
Greene’s exam may yield few results, or possible that when reexamined, From may experience a
26
flareup. Either outcome affects the case, and so defendants should be allowed to probe this area
27
via their expert’s examination. See, e.g., Hill v. Fairfield Police Department, 2017 WL 1198510
28
at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar 31, 2017) (“Plaintiff here appears to have had multiple pre-existing mental
4
1
conditions. Even if plaintiff only claims that his PTSD was aggravated by the incident,
2
defendants are entitled to explore plaintiff’s psychiatric condition to determine whether the
3
alleged aggravated symptoms are truly attributable to the incident and PTSD, or whether there are
4
other unrelated causes for such alleged symptoms.”).
5
Beyond this fact, the court notes other issues supporting a finding of good cause. First, it
6
would unduly hamper defendants’ defense of their case if plaintiffs were allowed to offer their
7
own expert’s testimony but defendants be disallowed a potentially-competing report. See, e.g.,
8
Nguyen v. Qualcomm Inc., 2013 WL 3353840, at *7 (S.D.Cal. July 3, 2013) (“A defendant
9
should have a balanced opportunity to assess the plaintiff's allegations and proof concerning
10
emotional distress damages, and a plaintiff's chosen expert should not be the only expert who ever
11
actually examined the plaintiff.”). Second, the court agrees that defendants’ expert should be
12
required to study up on From’s history by examining the universe of available discovery,
13
including from plaintiff Wagnon’s deposition. However, this should not act as a bar to
14
defendants, given that the scope of Dr. Greene’s questioning will delve into issues beyond what
15
may be available in the documents. See, e.g., Franco v. Boston Scientific Corp., 2006 WL
16
3065580, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2006) (declining to limit the scope of questioning where the
17
examinee’s history was lengthy and predated the alleged events). Third, defendants’ time has yet
18
to run out with discovery matters, given discovery is still open. (See ECF No. 28.) Fourth, while
19
Dr. Greene’s lack of experience working with younger, non-verbal patients may be a fruitful
20
avenue for attack at a Daubert hearing or on cross-examination before the jury, his resume shows
21
he is a qualified, licensed professional for purposes of defendants’ Rule 35 motion. See, e.g.,
22
Newman, 272 F.R.D. 505 (finding defendant’s proposed examiner was qualified under the Rules
23
despite plaintiff’s attack on the doctor’s lack of specific specialty, given the doctor was a licensed
24
psychologist with significant experience). Thus, these concerns of plaintiffs do not affect the
25
court’s finding of good cause.
26
Scope of the Exam
27
In addition to findings on the ‘at issue’ and ‘good cause’ prongs, Rule 35 requires the
28
court order to “specify the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination, as well
5
1
2
as the person or persons who will perform it.”
As to the date and length of the exam, counsel for the parties agreed to confer after
3
discussion with plaintiff Wagnon and Dr. Greene. When the parties have agreed on these (and
4
any other) parameters, they shall submit a stipulation and proposed order to the court for
5
signature.
6
7
Defendants have agreed to be flexible on the location, and after discussion with the
parties, it appears the best place to conduct the exam will be at plaintiffs’ home.
8
The court will not set limitations on the kinds of tests Dr. Greene will be allowed to
9
conduct. See, e.g., Newman, 272 F.R.D. 505 (declining to limit the kinds of tests proposed
10
without evidence that certain tests will be dangerous to the examinee). Further, no specific limits
11
are set on Dr. Greene’s questioning of Wagnon concerning From’s history. However, defendants
12
are cautioned that Dr. Greene’s exam shall not be harassing to plaintiffs and shall not act as a
13
second deposition. Thus, to the extent Dr. Greene can conduct any investigation of From’s
14
history prior to the exam, so as to lessen the burden on Wagnon, the doctor shall do so.
15
Finally, defendants had previously stipulated to allowing Wagnon to terminate Dr.
16
Greene’s exam if at any time she feels, in good faith, that the exam is overly traumatizing to her
17
son. Counsel for plaintiff shall review this good faith standard with Wagnon before the exam and
18
shall make her aware that if the exam is ended early, it will be rescheduled for a future date.
19
However, if the exam is prematurely terminated, it will be probably rescheduled to continue on a
20
future date. The court will endeavor to make itself available the day of the exam, should any
21
good faith disputes arise requiring court intervention.
22
ORDER
23
It is HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ motion to conduct an independent medical
24
exam of plaintiff From (ECF No. 39) is GRANTED on the conditions outlined in this order.
25
Dated: August 30, 2022
26
27
28
wagn.1666
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?