Swoboda v. Manders et al

Filing 50

ORDER denying 46 Motion to Compel Independent Mental Exam. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 4/20/2015. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MICHAEL SWOBODA
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 14-19-SCR
KARL MANDERS, ET AL
RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL INDEPENDENT MENTAL EXAM
Before the court is the Motion to Compel Independent Mental
Examination filed by defendants Karl Manders, Denise Mosteller,
Jeremiah A. Pastrick, Karla Bledsoe, and Continental Incorporated,
Inc. d/b/a Continental Enterprises.

Record document number 46.

The motion is opposed.1
Rule 35, Fed.R.Civ.P., provides in relevant part, as follows:
(a) Order for an Examination.
(1) In General. The court where the action is
pending may order a party whose mental or physical
condition--including blood group--is in controversy
to submit to a physical or mental examination by a
suitably licensed or certified examiner. The court
has the same authority to order a party to produce
for examination a person who is in its custody or
under its legal control.
(2) Motion and Notice; Contents of the Order. The
order:
(A) may be made only on motion for good cause
and on notice to all parties and the
person to be examined; and
(B) must specify the time, place, manner,
conditions, and scope of the examination,
as well as the person or persons who will
perform it.
1

Record document number 48.

Defendants moved for an examination of the plaintiff by Dr.
John W. Thompson, Jr., who is board certified in neurology and
psychiatry. Defendants argued they are entitled to a Rule 35 order
because the nature of the claims and damages alleged by the
plaintiff clearly place his mental condition at issue.2 Defendants
argued that the requirement of good cause is satisfied here based
on these allegations, and the fact that the plaintiff provided
evidence in written discovery responses showing that in July 2013,
after his arrest, he saw his doctor for symptoms of posttraumatic
stress disorder (“PTSD”).3
Plaintiff did not dispute that his claims place his mental
condition in controversy.

However, the plaintiff argued that the

defendants failed to establish good cause for the examination they
are seeking. According to the plaintiff, the defendants’ arguments
fail to establish the necessary good cause because: (1)

the

evidence relied on by the defendants shows treatment soon after his
arrest, but he no longer suffers from PTSD: (2) he has not
identified an expert witnesses on the issue of damages; and, (3) on
the issues of emotional distress and mental anguish, the defendants
have not deposed him or the doctor who treated him in July 2013.
Plaintiff maintained that a mental examination conducted at this

2

Defendants noted the plaintiff has alleged a claim for
intentional infliction of emotional distress, and claimed damages
for severe emotional distress, damage to reputation, mental anguish
and embarrassment.
Record document number 1, Plaintiff’s
Complaint, ¶¶ 78 and 117.
3

Record document number 46-2, Exhibit 1, p. 4.
2

time is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible

evidence

related

to

the

temporary

PTSD

which

he

experienced two years ago and which is not an ongoing condition.
Plaintiff’s arguments are persuasive.

Because the defendants

have yet to obtain additional information from the plaintiff or his
doctor about the existence and/or extent of his emotional distress
and damages, they have no basis to claim that a Rule 35 examination
is necessary for them to defend against the plaintiff’s claims.
Defendants also do not dispute that the plaintiff was only treated
for a mental condition in July 2013; there is no indication that
the

plaintiff

is

treatment for them.

experiencing

ongoing

symptoms

and

receiving

Defendant failed to show how evidence of the

plaintiff’s current mental status obtained in a Rule 35 examination
would be relevant to his condition two years ago.

Defendants have

not established the good cause required by Rule 35.4
Accordingly,

the

Motion

to

Compel

Independent

Mental

Examination filed by defendants Karl Manders, Denise Mosteller,
Jeremiah A. Pastrick, Karla Bledsoe, and Continental Incorporated,
Inc., d/b/a Continental Enterprises, is denied.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, April 20, 2015.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

It is unnecessary to address the plaintiff’s argument that
the defendants have not complied with the requirements of Rule
35(a)(2)(B).
3