Tims et al v. Clark County School District et al

Filing 238

ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part 217 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 9/23/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Michael A. Burke, Esq., NV Bar No. 11527
ROBISON, SHARP, SULLIVAN & BRUST
71 Washington Street
Reno, NV 89503
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Peter W. Alfert, CA Bar No. 83139
Ian A. Hansen, CA Bar No. 255449
LAW OFFICES OF PETER ALFERT, PC
909 Marina Village Parkway, #199
Alameda, CA 94501-1048
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
(Pro Hac Vice)
Todd A. Boley, CA Bar No. 68119
LAW OFFICE OF TODD BOLEY
2831 Mariner Square Dr., Ste. 280
Alameda, CA 94501
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
(Pro Hac Vice)

13
14

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

17
18

TAMMARA TIMS and H.H., a minor by and
through his Guardian Ad Litem, GENEVA
ATTEBERRY,

19
20
21
22
23

Plaintiffs,
v.
CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
KASEY GLASS, MARK CONNORS, and
DOES 1-50,

Case No. 2:18-cv-00021-JAD-VCF
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT
KASEY GLASS’
MOTION TO
COMPEL RULE 35
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION
OF MINOR PLAINTIFF H.H. [ECF
No. 217]

Defendants.

24
25
26
27
28

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON DEFENDANT
MOTION TO COMPEL RULE 35 EXAM
KASEY GLASS’

Case No. 2:18-cv-00021-JAD-VCF

1

Having reviewed and considered Defendant Kasey Glass’Motion to Compel Rule 35

2

Psychological Examination of Minor Plaintiff H.H. (“
Motion” [ECF No. 217], and having read
)

3

and considered all papers filled in support thereof and in opposition thereto, and having heard and

4

considered the oral arguments of counsel on September 16, 2019, and with good cause appearing,

5

the Court orders as follows:

6

ORDER

7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Motion is

8

hereby GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART and the Court orders as follows:

9

1.

10

before October 15, 2019 by Defendant’ Rule 35 examiner, Dr. Kimberley Lakes (“
s
Rule

11
12

The Rule 35 Psychological Examination of minor plaintiff H.H. shall take place on or

35 Examiner”
).
2.

13

The Rule 35 examiner’ report shall be provided to Plaintiff’ counsel on request on or
s
s
before October 22, 2019. The examiner's report must be in writing and must set out in

14
detail the examiner's findings, including diagnoses, conclusions, and the results of any
15
tests, as provided by Rule 35. Copies of the raw data of the tests shall also be provided to
16
Plaintiff’ attorney, Peter Alfert, Esq. only, on request at that time so that it may be
s

17

provided to Plaintiff’ retained expert only, subject to a supplemental confidentiality
s

18

order. This raw data shall be designated as confidential. Plaintiff’ request for a limited
s

19

deposition of the examiner following the examination is denied without prejudice.

20
4.

The deadline for initial expert reports shall be extended to November 22, 2019.

5.

The deadline for rebuttal expert reports shall be extended to December 23, 2019.

23

6.

Expert discovery shall close on January 30, 2020.

24

7.

The parties shall have until March 2, 2020 to file any dispositive motions.

21
22

25

The Court further orders that the exam be conducted under following conditions:

26

A. The exam shall be limited to the specific tests identified in the motion. Any testing the

27

Rule 35 examiner performs shall be limited to the four tests identified in the motion at

28

ECF 217 at 6:5-8.
i
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON DEFENDANT
MOTION TO COMPEL RULE 35 EXAM
KASEY GLASS’

Case No. 2:18-cv-00021-JAD-VCF

1

B. No interview of parents or any other caretaker shall be allowed.

2

C. Plaintiff’ guardian ad litem Geneva Atteberry shall be permitted to accompany H.H. and
s

3

attend the examination but should not be asked or required to take part in any interviews.

4

D. The examination shall be video recorded at Plaintiff’ expense. The videographer will set
s

5

up the video in the corner of the room and not be present during the examination. The

6

video recording of the examination shall be designated as confidential and subject to the

7

confidentiality order (ECF No. 33) and retained by the videographer. The video

8
9
10
11

recording shall not be released by the videographer to anyone except by further Court
order.
E. Neither Defendant Glass nor any counsel for any party may attend the exam which must
be held in neutral conference room in Las Vegas, Nevada.

12
13
14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
9-23-2019
Dated: _____________________
_______________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ii
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON DEFENDANT
KASEY GLASS’
MOTION TO COMPEL RULE 35 EXAM

Case No. 2:18-cv-00021-JAD-VCF