Knighten v. Omni Hotel
Filing
33
ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE, Dkt. No. 26 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 4/18/13. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
10
11 LINDA KNIGHTEN,
Case No. 12-cv-02296 CW (NC)
12
ORDER RE: DISCOVERY
DISPUTE
Plaintiff,
13
v.
Re: Dkt. No. 26
14 OMNI HOTEL,
15
Defendant.
16
17
The parties filed a joint discovery brief in which Omni seeks an order requiring
18 plaintiff to submit to a mental examination under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35. Dkt.
19 No. 26. The Court held a hearing on the discovery dispute on April 17, 2013. Based on the
20 parties’ submissions and the arguments of counsel at the hearing, the Court orders as
21 follows:
22
1.
The Court finds that plaintiff has placed her mental condition in controversy,
23 and that good cause exists for permitting a mental examination of plaintiff, limited in time
24 and scope as specified below. See Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 117-21 (1964).
25
2.
Plaintiff must submit to a mental examination by George W. Woods, Jr., M.D.
26 The examination must take place on a mutually agreed day within 30 days of the date of this
27 order at the office of Dr. Woods in San Francisco, beginning at 9:00 a.m. and not exceeding
28 three hours (not including any appropriate breaks).
Case No. 12-cv-02296 CW (NC)
ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE
1
3.
The ex
xamination must consi of those procedures and tests g
ist
s
generally ac
ccepted
m
mmunity as reasonably necessary t evaluate the nature, extent, and
to
d
2 by the medical com
)
f’s
nal
a
alth
s,
3 cause(s) of plaintiff emotion distress and related mental hea injuries including any
p
anifestation Whether Omni cau
ns.
used or exac
cerbated pla
aintiff’s
4 alleged physical ma
of
ded
o
ination. Th purpose o the
he
5 alcoholism is includ within the scope of the exami
ation is not to assess pl
laintiff’s cre
edibility an perceptio
nd
on.
6 examina
7
4.
Before the exami
vide
e
ination, Om
mni’s counse must prov Dr. W
el
Woods with a copy
o
8 of this order.
9
5.
Omni’ counsel must arrang for the ex
’s
m
ge
xamination to be audio
otaped and f a
for
ape
ovided to plaintiff’s co
ounsel with 14 days of the
hin
10 copy of the audiota to be pro
0
ation. The examination must not be videotap
e
n
b
ped.
11 examina
1
12
2
6.
The ex
xamination, results, an audiotape of the exa
nd
e
amination m only be used
may
e
ection with this lawsuit. The audi
iotape and r
results of pl
laintiff’s ex
xamination may
13 in conne
3
d
o
xcept Dr. Woods and h staff, co
W
his
ounsel in thi case, the Court,
is
14 not be distributed to anyone ex
4
f,
xpert witne retained by plaintiff without le
ess
ff,
eave of Cou
urt.
15 plaintiff and any ex
5
16
6
7.
Omni’ counsel must provid plaintiff’s counsel w a copy of the
’s
m
de
with
ation results within 14 days of the examinatio
s
e
on.
17 examina
7
18
8
8.
This order does not address the admissi
o
n
ibility of in
nformation d
disclosed du
uring
mination.
19 the exam
9
20
0
An party ma object to this nondispositive pr
ny
ay
o
retrial order within 14 days of the filing
r
e
t
21 date of this order. See Civ. L.R. 72-2.
1
22
2
IT IS SO OR
T
RDERED.
23
3
Date: April 18, 2013
____
__________
__________
_____
Nath
hanael M. C
Cousins
Unit States M
ted
Magistrate J
Judge
24
4
25
5
26
6
27
7
28
8
Case No. 12-cv-0229 CW (NC)
96
)
ORDER RE: DISCO
R
OVERY DIS
SPUTE
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?