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)
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?