Snyder v. Phelps et al

Filing 91

ORDER granting 88 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Richard D Bennett on 6/13/07. (eg, Deputy Clerk)

Download PDF
Snyder v. Phelps et al Doc. 91 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND ALBERT SNYDER Plaintiff vs. FRED W. PHELPS, SR., WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH, INC., JOHN DOES, JANE DOES Defendants * * * * * * ****** ORDER By Letter Order of June 11, 2007, this Court Ordered that the Plaintiff shall submit to the independent psychological medical examination to be conducted by Dr. Neil Blumberg on June 18, 2007, without his counsel being present during the examination. This Court previously found that the examination could be conducted in three hours. This Court allowed subsequent submissions on the issue of the scope of that examination, particularly with respect to the sexual background of the Plaintiff. The Defendants, Westboro Baptist Church, Inc. and Fred W. Phelps, Sr., have now filed a Motion to Reconsider Limitation on the Length of the Independent Medical Examination, as well as a Memorandum regarding the scope of that examination. (Paper #88). The Court having reviewed this submission, said Motion for Reconsideration of Time (Paper #88) is HEREBY GRANTED; and IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED this 13th day of June 2007, that said examination may be conducted for a period of up to six hours (excluding breaks). Civil Action No. RDB-06-1389 With respect to the scope of the examination, there is simply no basis for Dr. Blumberg to explore the sexual background and propensities of the Plaintiff and the scope of this examination will not include or permit any such inquiry. Dr. Blumberg may inquire as to marital history and other family issues, but not the sexual background and propensities of the Plaintiff. /s/ ___________________________________ Richard D. Bennett United States District Judge

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?