Colleen Mary Rohan, et al v. Jill Brown, et al

Filing 704

ORDER RESPONDENT'S EXAMINATION OF PETITIONER re 660 Case Management Scheduling Order, 700 Order. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 2/24/14. (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/24/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 15 16 ORDER Petitioner, 13 14 No. C 88-2779 WHA OSCAR GATES, v. KEVIN CHAPPELL, Warden, Respondent. / 17 18 It has come to the Court’s attention that respondent has scheduled a mental health 19 examination of petitioner by Dr. Park Dietz. The examination is apparently scheduled for 20 March 3, 2014. Respondent notified petitioner of this scheduled examination, but did not notify 21 the Court, nor move to conduct the examination pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. Pro. 35. 22 As the Court’s earlier orders clearly indicated, the parties are to submit a joint proposal 23 to the Court regarding any proposed examination of petitioner. See Docket Nos. 660 and 700. 24 Per the Court’s earlier orders, Rule 35, and the procedures that have previously been followed 25 in this matter, neither party is permitted to examine petitioner Gates without prior leave of 26 Court. Nothing in the Court’s earlier orders authorized an independent examination of 27 petitioner without Court approval of the procedures to be utilized for the examination. 28 Accordingly, respondent’s scheduled exam of petitioner is VACATED. The parties are once 1 again ORDERED to meet and confer in good faith, and to submit a joint plan for examination of 2 petitioner Gates. No examination of petitioner Gates is to be conducted absent leave of Court. 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 8 9 Dated: February 24 , 2014. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?