Preite v. Caesars Entertainment Corporation et al

Filing 50

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 45 Motion for order of Independent Medical Exam. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 11/6/14. (ncb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION

DEBORAH PREITE
VS.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13CV00282-GHD-JMV

BL DEVELOPMENT CORP.
d/b/a HARRAH’S TUNICA

DEFENDANT

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
MOTION FOR INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION
Before the court is Defendant’s motion for an independent medical examination of
Plaintiff pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 35 [45]. The court has considered the submissions of the
parties and the applicable law and is of the opinion that while defendant has shown good cause
for an IME in as much as Plaintiff’s physical condition is in controversy, the location selected
for the exam is unreasonable despite defendant’s willingness to pay for Plaintiff’s travel
expenses. The court has reached this conclusion particularly in view of the fact that Plaintiff
resides in Pennsylvania, and the exam is slated to take place in Mississippi and will require
Plaintiff to miss several days of work. Moreover, the court finds FED.R.CIV.P. 45(c), though
applicable to subpoenas, to be instructive regarding what is considered a reasonable place for an
IME. Pursuant to this rule a party may not be subpoenaed to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition
outside “the state where [she] resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person”
unless, of course, the place for the proceeding is within 100 miles of where she “resides, is
employed, or regularly transacts business in person.” Considering this authority, Plaintiff should
not be required to travel to Mississippi.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendant’s motion for a Rule 35 IME is granted to the extent that Plaintiff is hereby
ordered to submit to a medical examination to be conducted either within the State of
Pennsylvania or within 100 miles of where she “resides, is employed, or regularly transacts
business in person.”
2. The exam shall be conducted by an independent examiner, and no party or their
counsel may have contact with said examiner except as necessary to arrange the exam or to
provide necessary information requested by the examiner.
3. Within fourteen (14) days of this date, the parties shall submit to the undersigned a
proposed, agreed order that complies with Rule 35.
This 6th day of November, 2014.

/s/Jane M. Virden
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2