Velarde v. County of Alameda et al

Filing 87

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL STIPULATED MENTAL EXAMINATION WITHOUT LIMITATIONS REQUESTED BY PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL 82 . (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 6/6/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

HEIDE VELARDE,
Plaintiff,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No. 15-cv-03323-SI

v.
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO COMPEL STIPULATED
MENTAL EXAMINATION WITHOUT
LIMITATIONS REQUESTED BY
PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL
Re: Dkt. No. 82

Defendant’s motion to compel is scheduled for a hearing on June 7, 2017 at 4:00 p.m.
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that this matter is appropriate for
resolution without oral argument and VACATES the hearing.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 35 permits “[t]he court where the action is
pending [to] order a party whose mental . . . condition . . . is in controversy to submit to a . . .
mental examination by a suitably licensed or certified examiner.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a)(1). “To
permit such an examination, Defendant must establish that: (1) Plaintiff has placed his condition in
controversy, and (2) good cause exists for the examination.” Tan v. City & County of San
Francisco, No. C 08-01564 MEJ, 2009 WL 594238, * 1 (N.D. Cal. March 4, 2009) (citing
Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 3798 U.S. 104, 116–17 (1964)).
Plaintiff does not dispute that she has put her mental condition in controversy by claiming
severe emotional distress as a result of the events giving rise to this lawsuit, and plaintiff has
stipulated to an independent medical examination by defendant’s psychiatric expert, Dr. Jeffrey

1

Gould. The parties’ dispute centers on how much time should be allocated for the exam, with

2

plaintiff asserting that five hours is sufficient and defendants seeking eight hours without prejudice

3

to their right to ask for additional time upon a showing of good cause.

4

Plaintiff argues that Dr. Gould should be able to complete the exam within five hours

5

because, inter alia, plaintiff already provided a lot of background information in her deposition.

6

Plaintiff also states that she is concerned about “being required to repeatedly relive the trauma of

7

her solitary confinement,” and that an eight hour examination, plus breaks and travel time, would

8

result in an unreasonably long day. Dkt. No. 85 at 3-4.

9

Defendants counter that plaintiff “has significant pre-existing psychological issues related

10

to previous interactions with police unrelated to this lawsuit, previous civil litigation unrelated to

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

this lawsuit, and family stressors unrelated to this lawsuit that will require detailed examination by
a psychiatrist in the context of the claims and allegations made by Ms. Velarde in this case.” Dkt.
No. 86 at 1. Defendants have submitted Dr. Gould’s declaration in which he states that the
standard psychiatric testing that is part of the exam takes approximately two hours, but can take
considerably longer. Gould Decl. ¶ 6 (Dkt. No. 82-1). Dr. Gould also states that the interview
portion of the exam typically takes four to five hours, and can take longer depending on the

16
examinee. Id. ¶ 5. Defendants state it is possible Dr. Gould may not need eight hours to complete
17
the examination, but they request that the examination be set for a full eight hours in the event that
18
19
20
21

all the time is necessary.
The Court finds that defendants have demonstrated good cause for an eight hour
examination. Dr. Gould states that based upon his review of plaintiff’s psychiatric records and
history, as well as the fact that plaintiff has not previously undergone objective psychological

22

testing, it is his opinion that it would be very difficult to complete the examination within five

23

hours. While the Court recognizes that eight hours of examination may be difficult and tiring for

24

plaintiff, those concerns do not outweigh defendants’ need to adequately evaluate plaintiff’s

25

mental state. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motion to compel the stipulated

26

mental examination of plaintiff. The exam shall take place on a mutually agreeable date and time,

27

and may last up to eight hours, not including breaks. Although the Court expects that eight hours

28

shall be sufficient to complete the examination, defendants may seek additional time upon a
2

1

showing of good cause.

2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5
6

Dated: June 6, 2017

______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3