Caldwell v. City of San Francisco et al

Filing 223

ORDER regarding the Parties' October 22, 2015 joint letter 218 by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. (shyS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MAURICE CALDWELL,

Case No. 12-cv-01892-EDL

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER

9
10

CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 218

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

On October 13, 2015, this Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel a mental

13

examination of Plaintiff and ordered the Parties to meet and confer as to the specific tests which

14

will be administered. On October 22, 2015, the Parties filed a joint letter indicating that three

15

disputes remain with regard to the scope of the examination: (1) whether both the MMPI-2 and the

16

MCMI-III tests should be administered; (2) whether the clinical interview portion of the

17

examination should be limited to two hours; and (3) whether the examination should be audio

18

recorded.

19

Defendants’ psychologist, Dr. Berg, states the MMPI-2 “has many clinical scales assessing

20

mental health problems such as depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder” and that it

21

will help her “corroborate or contradict [her] conclusions about [Plaintiff] by cross referencing

22

[her] findings with the test’s empirical data.” (Berg Decl. ¶ 11.) She also states that the test “is

23

good at detecting deception or self-deception of a patient, which are both critical to understanding

24

a person’s psychological profile and damage.” Although Plaintiff argues, without citation, that the

25

MCMI-III is duplicative of the MMPI-2, Dr. Berg states that the MCMI-III is “not redundant or

26

the same as the MMPI-2, though they are similar in that they both rely on self-reporting” and that

27

“both are critical components of completing a full psychological diagnosis.” (Id. ¶ 12.)

28

Moreover, Dr. Berg states that the “MCMI-III is much more narrowly focused on determining if a

1

patient meets the specific criteria for a diagnosis.” (Id.) Accordingly, Dr. Berg may administer

2

both the MMPI-2 and the MCMI-III tests, as well as the Rorschach and Rotter tests to which

3

Plaintiff does not object.

4

Furthermore, Plaintiff’s requests to limit the clinical interview to two hours and to audio
record that portion of the examination are denied. Although Plaintiff asserts that Dr. Berg “is

6

certainly capable of conducting her interview” in two hours, Plaintiff cites no evidence that this is

7

in fact sufficient time or than an interview longer than two hours would be unduly burdensome.

8

Additionally, Plaintiff points to no compelling reason why an audio recording of the interview is

9

necessary in this case. See Ayat v. Societe Air France, 2007 WL 1120358, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Apr.

10

16, 2007) (Larson, J.) (rejecting a request for either a third party observer or an audio recording at

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

an independent medical examination and noting, in part, that “[t]he mere fact that [defendant’s]

12

experts were hired by [defendant], standing alone, does not create enough concern to warrant a

13

third party observer”); Newman v. San Joaquin Delta Cmty. Coll. Dist., 272 F.R.D. 505, 514 (E.D.

14

Cal. 2011) (“In the same way third party observation of mental exams is disfavored, the presence

15

of recording devices during such exams is also disfavored.”).

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 26, 2015

18
________________________
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2