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)

Download PDF
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

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?