Shahan v. Golden State Bridge Inc

Filing 43

Order by Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins denying 39 Motion to Compel. (nclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

10
11

ALLEN SHAHAN,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 13-cv-03594 NC
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
COMPEL PSYCHIATRIC EXAM OF
PLAINTIFF

GOLDEN STATE BRIDGE, INC.,
Defendant.

Re: Dkt. No. 39

16
17
18

This is a maritime personal injury case. Plaintiff Allen Shahan seeks damages for

19 severe injuries to various parts of his body, including a brain injury he sustained when a 100
20 pound choker fell approximately seventy feet and struck him on the head and shoulders.
21 Defendant Golden State Bridge moves to compel a psychiatric examination of plaintiff
22 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35(a). Dkt. No. 39.
23

Rule 35 provides that a court may order a party to submit to a mental examination if

24 the party’s mental condition is in controversy and there is good cause for the examination.
25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a)(1). The ‘in controversy’ and ‘good cause’ requirements of Rule 35
26 “are not met by mere conclusory allegations of the pleadings—nor by mere relevance to the
27 case—but require an affirmative showing by the movant that each condition as to which the
28 examination is sought is really and genuinely in controversy and that good cause exists for
Case No. 13-cv-03594 NC
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
COMPEL PSYCHIATRIC EXAM

g
cular exami
ination.” Schlagenhau v. Holder 379 U.S. 104, 118 (1
S
uf
r,
1964).
1 ordering each partic
2

Here, plaintif agreed to neurologic and neur
ff
cal
ropsycholog
gical defense examina
ations.

pose of the neuropsych
hological ex
xamination was to dete
n
ermine “the nature and extent
e
d
3 The purp
tiff’s allege traumatic brain injur and to a
ed
c
ry”
address “psychologica aspects re
al
elated
4 of Plaint
1
ourt
hat
ge
hown
5 to the claim.” Dkt. No. 41 at 11. The Co finds th Golden State Bridg has not sh
e
n
ary. The mo
otion to com a psyc
mpel
chiatric
6 that the proposed psychiatric examination is necessa
ation of plai
intiff is DEN
NIED for la of good cause.
ack
d
7 examina
8

IT IS SO OR
T
RDERED.

9

Date: Septem
mber 16, 20
014

10
0

____
__________
__________
_____
Nath
hanael M. C
Cousins
Unit States M
ted
Magistrate J
Judge

11
1
12
2
13
3
14
4
15
5
16
6
17
7
18
8
19
9
20
0
21
1
22
2
23
3
24
4
25
5
26
6
27
7
28
8
Case No. 13-cv-0359 NC
94
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
R
G
T
COMPE PSYCHIA
EL
ATRIC EXA
AM

2