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)

Download PDF
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

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?