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)

Download PDF
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?