Sean Moore v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 40

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE 39 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 2/27/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SEAN MOORE,
Plaintiff,

8

11

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE

v.

9
10

Case No. 18-cv-00634-SI

Re: Dkt. No. 39
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13
14

Now before the Court is a discovery dispute letter jointly submitted by the parties. See
Docket. No. 39.

15
BACKGROUND

16
17

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges various causes of action arising from an incident with San

18

Francisco police officers in January 2017.1

19

responded to a call from plaintiff’s neighbor who alleged plaintiff violated a restraining order.

20

Complaint ¶16. As detailed in the complaint, the police officers went to plaintiff’s home to speak

21

with him and plaintiff refused to let them inside. Id. ¶18-32. The exchange between the police

22

officers and plaintiff culminated in plaintiff being shot twice. Id. ¶33.

In January 2017, San Francisco police officers

23

The issue now before the Court is whether nor not plaintiff should submit to a mental

24

examination pursuant to FRCP 35. Defendants request the exam in light of plaintiff’s diagnosis

25

with schizophrenia and his behavior during his deposition. Plaintiff opposes the exam, arguing the

26

medical records sufficiently detail his diagnosis and render the exam superfluous.

27
28

1

The Complaint says in paragraph 1 that the altercation between the parties took place on
January 11, however, paragraph 16 says the altercation took place on January 6.

LEGAL STANDARD

1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35(a) gives a court authority to order one party to comply

3

with the other’s legitimate discovery request to submit to a physical or mental examination by a

4

suitably licensed examiner. The party moving for physical or mental examination must meet two

5

requirements: (1) the physical or mental condition of the party must be “in controversy” and (2)

6

“good cause” for examination must be established. Ragge v. MCA/Universal Studios, 165 F.R.D.

7

605, 608 (C.D. Cal. 1995). “Good cause for a mental examination requires a showing that the

8

examination could adduce specific facts relevant to the cause of action and necessary to the

9

defendant's case.” Id. at 609. It is within the broad discretion of the district court to determine

10

whether a party must submit to examination. Shirsat v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc., 169

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

2

F.R.D. 68, 70 (E.D. Pa. 1996).

12
DISCUSSION

13
14

Plaintiff’s mental state is in controversy for several reasons. First, in his second cause of

15

action plaintiff places his mental state in controversy by claiming intentional infliction of

16

emotional distress as a result of alleged Fourth Amendment violations.

17

schizophrenia diagnosis goes to his behavior on the morning in question. Finally, the medical

18

examination is appropriate with respect to plaintiff’s competency in light of his statements during

19

his deposition and during the morning in question.

Second, plaintiff’s

20

Plaintiff argues the proposed exam is unnecessary because the documents, testimony, and

21

medical records already provided through the discovery process sufficiently detail plaintiff’s

22

schizophrenia diagnosis.

23

available materials relevant to plaintiff's mental health prior to the exams, both as context and to

24

avoid redundant testing. However, the Court is unpersuaded that medical records are equally as

25

informative as a comprehensive forensic psychological and psychiatric exam.

The Court agrees that the examiner should thoroughly review all

26
27
28
2

CONCLUSION

1
2
3

For the forgoing reasons, the Court chooses to exercise its broad discretion and hereby
GRANTS defendants’ request for a mental examination pursuant to FRCP 35.

4
5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 27, 2019
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

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