Richardson v. Fluor Corporation

Filing 64

Discovery Order re 58 Joint Letter Regarding Matter in Dispute Between the Parties Regarding the Rule 35 Mental Examination of Plaintiff. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 6/9/2014. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/9/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

TIMOTHY RAY RICHARDSON,

Case No. 13-cv-01908-SBA (MEJ)

Plaintiff,
8

DISCOVERY ORDER

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 58

9
10

FLUOR CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

The Court is in receipt of the parties’ Joint Letter regarding the Stipulation for the Rule 35

14

mental examination of Plaintiff, Timothy Ray Richardson (“Plaintiff”). Jt. Ltr., Dkt. No. 58.

15

Defendant has scheduled two Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 35 examinations of

16

Plaintiff. Id. at 3. Plaintiff has not yet scheduled his own expert examinations because he wishes

17

to provide the Rule 35 reports to his own experts prior to their examination of him. Id. Plaintiff

18

maintains he is entitled to receive a copy of any reports made by Defendant’s examiners, and any

19

raw data generated from their examination, “upon request” as provided by Rule 35(b)(1). Id. at 1.

20

Defendants contend that the examiners’ reports are expert reports, and thus they are not required to

21

provide these reports or data until the expert discovery deadline as mandated by Rule 26(a)(2). Id.

22

at 3. Both parties’ examiners will testify as experts at trial. Id. at 1.

23

Rule 35(b)(1) provides that “the party who moved for the examination must, on request,

24

deliver the requester a copy of the examiner’s report, together with like reports of all earlier

25

examinations of the same condition.” Rule 35(b)(3) provides that “after delivering the reports, the

26

party who moved for the examination may request - and is entitled to receive- from the party

27

against whom the examination order was issued like reports of all earlier or later examinations of

28

the same condition.” The statute does not provide any specific time limits.

1

Rule 26(a)(2) provides that “[A] party must disclose to the other parties the identity of any

2

witness it may use at trial to present evidence. . . . [T]his disclosure must be accompanied by a

3

written report -- prepared and signed by the witness -- if the witness is one retained or specially

4

employed to provide expert testimony in the case or one whose duties as the party’s employee

5

regularly involve giving expert testimony.”

6

There is no uniform approach to the question of whether Rules 26 and 35 should be

7

applied independently or read in conjunction with one another. See Manni v. City of San Diego,

8

2012 WL 6025783, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2012). A number of district courts have found that

9

Rules 26 and Rule 35 operate independently of each other with respect to the timing of a Rule 35
expert report. See Furlong v. Circle Line Statue of Liberty Ferry, Inc., 902 F.Supp. 65, 71

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

(S.D.N.Y. 1995); Waggoner v. Ohio Cent. R.R., Inc., 242 F.R.D. 413, 414 (S.D. Ohio 2007); Bush

12

v. Pioneer Human Servs., 2010 WL 324432, at *5 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 21, 2010).

13

In contrast, a number of courts hold that Rule 35 expert reports are subject to Rule

14

26(a)(2)’s timing requirements. See Manni, 2012 WL 6025783, at *3; Diaz v. Con–Way

15

Truckload, Inc., 279 F.R.D. 412, 419 (S.D. Tex. 2012); Minnard v. Rotech Healthcare Inc., 2008

16

WL 150502, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2008) ( if a Rule 35 examining physician is intended to be

17

called as a witness at trial, the Rule 35 report must be produced at the time established for other

18

Rule 26(a)(2) disclosures); Shumaker v. West, 196 F.R.D. 454, 456 (S.D. W.Va. 2000)( if a Rule

19

35 examining physician is intended to be called as a witness at trial, the Rule 35 report must be

20

produced at the time established for other Rule 26(a)(2) disclosures)).

21

In the situation presented here, because the examining physicians are intended to be called

22

as witnesses at trial, and the examinations will be held within a few weeks of the expert disclosure

23

deadline, the Court ORDERS Defendant to produce the Rule 35 report and accompanying raw

24

data at the time established for the disclosure of experts pursuant to Rule 26.

25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 9, 2014
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge
2