Zhang v. United Technologies Corporation et al

Filing 62

ORDER on 51 Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute re: Defendants' Request that Plaintiff submit to a Mental Examination under Fed.R.Civ.P. 35. Plaintiff is required to submit to a mental examination under the terms and conditions provided in the appended Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 9/2/2011. (Dembin, Mitchell)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HONGWEI ZHANG,

12

CASE NO. 10cv0660 DMS (MDD)
Plaintiff,

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR
DETERMINATION OF DISCOVERY
DISPUTE RE: RULE 35 MENTAL
EXAMINATION

vs.
13
14

UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, et al.,

[DOC. NO. 51]

15
Defendants.
16
17
18

Background
On March 26, 2010, this case was removed to this Court by the Defendants. (Doc. No. 1).

19

Plaintiff was employed in various capacities and locations by Defendants from 1997 until early

20

2008. Her last assignment was with Defendant Hamilton Sunstrand Power Systems, Inc., in San

21

Diego, from 2006 until early 2008 when her employment was terminated. Plaintiff filed her

22

complaint in the California Superior Court alleging wrongful termination, breach of contract,

23

breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and intentional infliction of emotional

24

distress. The instant motion stems from the desire of the Defendants to have Plaintiff submit to a

25

mental examination pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 35.

26
27

Discussion
Rule 35(a) provides, in relevant part:

28
-1-

10cv0660 DMS (MDD)

1
2
3

When the mental or physical condition …of a party… is in controversy, the court in
which the action is pending may order the party to submit to a physical or mental
examination by a suitably licensed or certified examiner …. The order may be made
only on motion for good cause shown and upon notice to the person to be examined
and to all parties and shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of
the examination and the person or persons by whom it is to be made.

4
Under FRCP 35, a party is entitled to conduct a mental examination of another party if the
5
movant demonstrates that: (1) the plaintiff has placed her mental condition in controversy; and (2)
6
good cause exists for the examination. See, e.g., Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 116-117
7
(1964); Turner v. Imperial Stores, et al., 161 F.R.D. 89, 92 (S.D.Cal. 1995). Although there is a
8
constitutional right to privacy, that right is “conditional rather than absolute” and “is waived when
9
a plaintiff raise[s] before the court issues concerning her mental and emotional condition and seeks
10
damages for mental and emotional injuries.” Enwere v. Terman Assoc., LP, et al., 2008 U.S. Dist.
11
LEXIS 101901 at*5 (N.D.Cal. 2008)(citing Caesar v. Mountanos, 542 F.2d 1064, 1066-70 (9th
12
Cir. 1976). Rule 35 is to be “construed liberally to allow the examination.” Tan v. City and
13
County of San Francisco, et al., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21639 at *5 (N.D. Call 2009).
14
The initial inquiry in this case is whether Plaintiff has placed her mental condition
15
sufficiently in controversy. A plaintiff puts her mental state in controversy if one or more of the
16
following aggravating factors are present: (1) a cause of action for intentional or negligent
17
infliction of emotional distress; (2) an allegation of a specific mental or psychiatric injury or
18
disorder; (3) a claim of unusually severe emotional distress; or (5) plaintiff concedes that her
19
mental condition is “in controversy” within the meaning of Rule 35(a). Turner, 161 F.R.D. at 98;
20
Houghton v. M & F Fishing, Inc, 198 F.R.D. 666, 668 (S.D. Cal. 2001). Although mental state
21
may not be “in controversy” where only “garden variety” emotional distress damages are claimed,
22
presence of one of these factors is sufficient to place mental state in controversy. Houghton, 198
23
F.R.D. at 668.
24
There can be little question that the Plaintiff has placed her mental condition in
25
controversy. She specifically alleged a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional
26
distress, has alleged that the emotional distress has been severe and continuing and has sought
27
significant consequential monetary damages. (Doc. No. 1, § 120). The first part of the test has
28
-2-

10cv0660 DMS (MDD)

1

been satisfied.

2

The second and final inquiry is whether there is good cause to order the examination. A

3

factor used by the courts to assess “good cause” in this context is whether a party has alleged

4

some type of ongoing mental injury. See, e.g., Enwere, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101901 at *8

5

(citing Bridges v. Eastman Kodak Co., 850 F.Supp. 216, 221-22 (S.D.N.Y. 1994); Hodges v.

6

Keane, 145 F.R.D. 332, 334 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)(ordering mental examination where Plaintiff

7

demonstrated ongoing mental injury by alleging that her mental health injuries require

8

“continuing medical treatment”); Ragge v. MCA/Universal Studios, 165 F.R.D. 605, 608

9

(C.D.Cal. 1995). If a Plaintiff alleges ongoing mental injury or the likelihood of future mental

10

distress, there is typically good cause for a mental examination. See, e.g., Gabriel, 2007

11

U.S.Dist.LEXIS 89298 at * 5 (ordering an examination when plaintiff alleged anticipated

12

future emotional distress); Ayat, 2007 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 31285 at *11 (ordering mental

13

examination when plaintiff stated that he “suffered and continues to suffer from

14

depression…”).

15

Here, Plaintiff has alleged that Defendants caused her continuing emotional distress and

16

is seeking significant consequential damages. (Doc. No. 1 § 120). This Court believes that

17

there is good cause for the examination sought by Defendants.

18
19

Conclusion
It is ORDERED that Plaintiff must appear on October 10, 2011, at 9:00 a.m., at 16530

20

Ventura Blvd., Suite 200, in Encino, California, unless otherwise mutually agreed to by the parties,

21

and submit to a mental examination by Dr. David Glaser. The examination shall be completed no

22

later than 5:00 p.m. and must include standard lunch and rest breaks. Dr. Glaser’s mental

23

evaluation will consist of a clinical interview to assist in the interpretation of the test results and

24

the administration of psychological tests that are carefully selected to evaluate the nature and scope

25

of the emotional damages being claimed by Plaintiff. The testing may include evaluations of mood

26

and personality, cognitive complaints such as difficulty concentrating and forgetfulness, and

27

measures of response style. Dr. Glaser will employ widely accepted written tests such as the

28
-3-

10cv0660 DMS (MDD)

1

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2); the Millon Clinical Multiaxial

2

Inventory-III (MCMIIII) test; the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI); Beck Anxiety Inventory

3

(BAI); Western Psychological Services (WPS); and the Symptoms Validity Test (TOMM). The

4

examination is limited to a clinical mental interview and psychological testing. There will be no

5

invasive or physical examination. Dr. Glaser may ask and Plaintiff shall answer questions

6

regarding the events that are the subject of this action only to the extent necessary for Dr. Glaser

7

properly to evaluate Plaintiff’s mental condition. No persons other than Plaintiff, Dr. Glaser and

8

necessary staff to assist Dr. Glaser may attend. The examination may be recorded. To the extent

9

that forms or questionnaires are required to be completed, they shall be completed by Plaintiff

10
11
12

without assistance.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 2, 2011

13
14
15

Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin
U.S. Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-

10cv0660 DMS (MDD)