Lewis v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. et al

Filing 55

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Re 54 Joint Discovery Letter of February 20, 2014. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/24/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

AARON LEWIS,

9

Plaintiff,
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-12-6354 EMC

HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., et al.,

12

ORDER RE JOINT DISCOVERY
LETTER OF FEBRUARY 20, 2014

Defendants.
___________________________________/

(Docket No. 54)
13
14
15

Currently pending before the Court is the parties’ joint discovery letter of February 20, 2014.

16

Having considered the contents of that letter, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s request for

17

leave to take a physical, mental, and vocational examination.

18

With respect to Plaintiff’s physical condition, it is in controversy because Plaintiff has

19

claimed that Defendant failed to accommodate his physical disability related to his foot. There is

20

also good cause for the physical examination given that there are questions as to the extent of that

21

disability.

22

With respect to Plaintiff’s mental condition, it is also in controversy because Plaintiff

23

appears to be seeking ongoing or future damages. Although the damages Plaintiff seeks are related

24

to his physical condition, if Plaintiff did in fact have a mental condition that prevented him from

25

working (as he claimed to the Social Security Administration), then Defendant would have a basis

26

for arguing that no ongoing or future damages should be awarded. Because Plaintiff’s current

27

mental condition is thus at issue, there is also good cause for Defendant to take the mental

28

examination.

1
2

Finally, the Court shall permit the vocational examination to the extent it is in connection

3

with the above physical and mental examinations. Even the authority cited by Plaintiff indicates that

4

such a vocational examination is permissible. See Storms v. Lowe’s Home Ctrs., Inc., 211 F.R.D.

5

296, 298 (W.D. Va. 2002) (concluding that, “where a party seeks a mere vocational assessment not

6

connected with any physical or mental examination . . . , Rule 35 is not implicated”) (emphasis

7

added); Stanislawski v. Upper River Servs., 134 F.R.D. 260, 262 (D. Minn. 1991) (suggesting that a

8

vocational examination is permissible where it is a “necessary component of [the permitted] medical

9

evaluation”).
The Court therefore grants Defendant’s motion but orders the parties to meet and confer to

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

discuss “the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination[s], as well as the person

12

or persons who will perform [them].” Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a)(2)(B).

13

This order disposes of Docket No. 54.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: February 24, 2014

18

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2