Berndt et al v. California Department of Corrections et al

Filing 520

ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting 504 Motion for Rule 35 order (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2013)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
MARTHA BERNDT, et al.,
7
Plaintiffs,

No. C 03-3174 PJH

8
v.
9
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
RULE 35 ORDER

Defendants.
_______________________________/

12
13

Defendants’ motion for a Rule 35 order for the mental examinations of plaintiffs

14

Berndt, Morin, and Boyd came on for hearing before this court on June 12, 2013. Plaintiffs

15

Martha Berndt, Kimberly Morin, and Lisa Boyd (“plaintiffs”)1 appeared through their counsel,

16

Pamela Price and Simona Farrise. Defendants California Department of Corrections and

17

Rehabilitation, Teresa Reagle, Joseph McGrath, David Skerik, and Dr. Dwight Winslow

18

(“defendants”) appeared through their counsel, Lyn Harlan. Having read the papers filed in

19

conjunction with the motion and carefully considered the arguments and the relevant legal

20

authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS defendants’ motion, for

21

the reasons stated at the hearing and as follows.

22

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 allows a court to order a party to submit to a

23

mental examination, if the party’s mental condition is in controversy and if the order is

24

supported by good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a)(1), (a)(2)(A). In this case, plaintiffs do not

25

dispute that their mental conditions are in controversy, as all three seek substantial

26
27
28

1

The other plaintiffs in this case are Marta Hastings, Sophia Curry, Shelly Adcock,
Patricia Moreira, Karen Currie, Raissa Jeffries, and the estate of Judy Kay Longo. For
purposes of this order, the term “plaintiffs” shall refer only to plaintiffs Berndt, Morin, and Boyd,
since those three are the only plaintiffs involved with this motion.

plaintiffs argue that defendants have not demonstrated good cause for the requested

3

mental examinations, because “the information sought through a mental exam may be

4

available by other means.” Specifically, plaintiffs argue that they have already undergone

5

“extensive psychological evaluations” and that “defense counsel has subpoenaed medical

6

records and psychiatric records and gained unlimited access to their workers’

7

compensation records.” The court finds this scenario similar to that in Lester v. Mineta, in

8

which that court agreed that “the examiners should thoroughly review all available materials

9

relevant to plaintiff’s mental health prior to the exams, both as context and to avoid

10

redundant testing,” but was ultimately “unpersuaded that a comprehensive forensic

11
For the Northern District of California

damages for emotional distress. However, in their opposition to defendants’ motion,

2

United States District Court

1

psychological and psychiatric exam can be pieced together using the scattered information

12

already available.” 2006 WL 3741949, *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2006) (granting Rule 35

13

motion). Here, too, the court is unpersuaded that plaintiffs’ previous medical records are

14

sufficient to preclude any further examination into plaintiffs’ mental conditions. These three

15

plaintiffs seek damages for ongoing emotional distress, and defendants are entitled to an

16

opportunity to rebut plaintiffs’ claims.

17

Plaintiffs raise two other issues in their opposition to defendants’ motion. First, they

18

argue that defendants’ motion did not specify the “manner, conditions, and scope” of the

19

proposed examinations. Defendants provided such information in their reply brief, thereby

20

mooting plaintiffs’ objection. Second, as to plaintiff Berndt, plaintiffs argue that “defendants

21

should be required to either arrange for the testing to occur near Ms. Berndt’s home in

22

Washington state or bear all of the expenses of having her travel to the Bay Area.”

23

However, the “general rule is that the party being examined must pay his or her own travel

24

expenses to an examination in the forum state.” McCloskey v. United Parcel Service

25

General Services Co., 171 F.R.D. 268, 270 (D. Or. 1997) (internal citation omitted). The

26

court also notes that plaintiffs themselves chose this forum in which to litigate.

27

For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS defendants’ motion for a Rule 35

28
2

1

order compelling the mental examinations of plaintiffs Berndt, Morin, and Boyd. The

2

examinations shall take place at the offices of defendants’ experts in San Francisco,

3

California. At the hearing, the parties were ordered to meet and confer regarding the

4

details of the examinations, and to provide a stipulation by June 19, 2013. If the parties

5

are unable to reach agreement, plaintiffs may file a five page brief in support of their

6

requested protective order by June 19, 2013, and defendants may file a five page

7

response by June 24, 2013.

8
9

Finally, as stated at the hearing, the court is in receipt of medical records for plaintiff
Marta Hastings. The records appear to have been sent by plaintiff Hastings’ treating
facility, in response to a subpoena issued by defendants. Defendants were directed to

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

prepare a release form, in accordance with HIPAA, for Ms. Hastings’ signature. Once the

12

court receives the signed release form, it shall turn the records over to defendants. If

13

plaintiff refuses to sign a release, she shall be precluded from relying on this evidence at

14

trial.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
Dated: June 18, 2013
17

______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3