Page et al v. Hertz Corporation et al

Filing 60

ORDER granting in part and denying in part defendants' 42 Motion for Sanctions or, in the alternative, motion to compel. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Veronica L. Duffy on 11/15/11. (Duffy, Veronica)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
WESTERN DIVISION
GARY W. PAGE and LORIE PAGE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
HERTZ CORPORATION;
HERTZ RENT A CAR, and
KAREN S. KNIPPLE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIV. 09-5098

ORDER GRANTING
HERTZ’S MOTION TO
COMPEL OR FOR SANCTIONS
[Docket No. 42]

INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the court pursuant to a complaint alleging
negligence and strict liability by plaintiffs Gary and Lorie Page, husband and
wife, against defendants arising out of an August 6, 2009, motor vehicle
accident in South Dakota. See Docket No. 1. Pending before the court is a
motion for sanctions or, in the alternative, to compel, and to extend expert
disclosure deadlines [Docket No. 42] filed by Hertz Corporation and Hertz Rent
A Car (collectively “Hertz”) arising from a dispute between the parties regarding
an independent medical examination (“IME”) scheduled by Hertz in Colorado.
The district court, the Honorable Jeffrey L. Viken, referred the motion to this
magistrate judge for decision pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). See Docket
No. 57.

1

FACTS
The facts pertinent to the motion pending before this court are as follows.
Gary and Lorie Page reside in Hillsdale, Ontario, Canada. On August 6, 2009,
Gary Page was operating a motorcycle on Interstate 90 near Piedmont, South
Dakota, when he was involved in an accident with Karen Kipple, who was
operating a motor vehicle owned by Hertz. See Docket No. 1 at ¶¶ 10-11. As a
result of the accident, Mr. Page asserts that he suffered and sustained
“catastrophic injuries” including a “occipital condyle fracture, soft tissue
injuries to his cervical spine, multiple thoracic spinal fractures, a loss of
consciousness due to a concussion, a rotator cuff tear to his left shoulder,
multiple lower extremity injuries,” including amputation of his left leg below
the knee. See Docket Nos. 1, 53. Mr. Page also alleges that he “sustained a
permanent traumatic brain injury and suffers from a chronic pain syndrome as
a result of the motorcycle accident.” See Docket No. 53 at pages 27-28.
Mr. Page’s expert, Dr. Kurzman, has issued an opinion supporting this latter
assertion of injury.
On April 26, 2011, Hertz, by way of e-mail, advised counsel for Mr. Page
that arrangements had been made for Mr. Page to see Dr. Jeffrey Wunder for
an IME in Denver, Colorado, on May 26, 2011, and Patrick Renfro for a
vocational rehabilitation interview in Greeley, Colorado, on May 27, 2011. See
Docket No. 55-1 at page 3. On April 27, 2011, counsel for Mr. Page replied by

2

saying, “I assume [plaintiffs] would have to fly to Denver and drive to Greeley,
is that correct?” Id. An e-mail that same day confirmed that “they’ll need to fly
into Denver and rent a car.” Id. By way of additional e-mail communication it
was established that Hertz would schedule a shuttle service or taxi to transport
both Mr. and Mrs. Page from the airport in Denver to their hotel and then to
Mr. Page’s appointments in both Greeley and Denver, Colorado. Id. at pages 12.
On May 11, 2011, an e-mail was sent to counsel for Mr. Page indicating
that in addition to the already scheduled appointments with Dr. Wunder and
Mr. Renfro, Hertz had scheduled an independent neuropsychological evaluation
with Dr. Gregory Thwaites. See Docket No. 53 at page 31. The e-mail listed
the revised schedule as follows:
Thursday May 26
Thursday May 26
Friday May 27

10:15 a.m.
3:00 p.m.
8:00- 5:00

Dr. Wunder
Patrick Renfro
Dr. Thwaites

Id. The e-mail also indicated that it was Hertz’ intention “to book the above
travel arrangements tomorrow afternoon at 3:00 Mountain Time. Please advise
if there is any difficulty at all with the above.” Id. There is nothing in the
record indicating that Mr. Page objected to the proposed schedule. On May 23,
2011, an e-mail was again sent to counsel for Mr. Page informing them that
travel arrangements had been made and providing Mr. Page with a copy of the

3

flight itinerary, hotel confirmation, and the shuttle services from Greeley to
Denver.1 See Docket No. 47-1.
Mr. Page asserts that he had several issues with his travel arrangements.
See Docket No. 53 at pages 5-6. Mr. Page encountered a problem with
transportation from his hotel to Dr. Wunder’s office on May 26, 2011. Id.
Mr. Page also encountered a problem with transportation from his appointment
in Greeley, Colorado, to Denver, Colorado, to attend his appointment with
Mr. Renfro. Id. Apparently the shuttle driver hired by Hertz to transport
Mr. Page from Greeley to Denver, a ride of approximately one hour, got lost and
had to ask for directions, adding additional time to the drive. Id. at page 4.
However, Mr. Page was not late for his appointment with Mr. Renfro. See
Docket No. 55-3. Additionally, after completion of the interview with

1

As an aside from the travel arrangements and scheduled appointments,
a dispute arose between Mr. Page and Hertz regarding whether a vocational
consultant would be allowed to attend the vocational evaluation by Mr. Renfro.
This dispute was eventually resolved in a motion to compel hearing on May 26,
2011, in which the district court held that Mr. Page would be permitted to have
Ms. Cheryl Rahm-McGrath present for Mr. Renfro’s interview. However,
“because Plaintiff’s counsel had not intended or expected to have Ms. RahmMcGrath attend the vocational interview, she had completed her work with the
physiatry IME and had been told that she would not be allowed in the Thwaites
IME, she was on her way back to Sioux Falls before we could catch up with her
to try to attend the Renfro interview.” See Docket No. 53 at pages 3-4.
Ms. Rahm-McGrath did not attend the interview with Mr. Renfro or
Dr. Thwaites.
4

Mr. Renfro, Mr. Page “had to endure a long return ride during rush hour from
Denver back to Greeley.” See Docket No. 53 at page 4.
The following day, May 27, 2011, Mr. Page awoke to attend the session
with Dr. Thwaites and discovered that he had “no transportation from the hotel
to Dr. Thwaites’ office and ended up having to hire a taxi cab and pay for it out
of his own pocket.” Id. However, as indicated in an e-mail exchange between
counsel for Mr. Page and Hertz, counsel for Mr. Page was aware that there was
no shuttle from the hotel to Dr. Thwaites office so counsel for
Mr. Page “advised [Mr. and Mrs. Page] to take a taxi to Dr. Thwaites office in
the morning and keep the receipts.” Id. Finally, Mr. Page asserts that he also
“encountered difficulty sleeping both of the nights he was at the motel in
Greeley in part because he was in extreme pain and in part because there was
excessive noise in the motel do [sic] to some maintenance being carried out.”
Id.
According to Dr. Thwaites’ progress notes regarding the examination,
Mr. Page arrived at Dr. Thwaites’ office for the IME on May 27, 2011, shortly
before 8:00 a.m. See Docket No. 43-3. Upon arrival, Mr. Page filled out
various disclosure forms and was told the purpose of the evaluation,
Dr. Thwaites’ background and training, and that Dr. Thwaites had been “hired
by the defense to conduct an independent neuropsychological evaluation.” Id.

5

Dr. Thwaites noted that Mr. Page appeared to be “quite angry with his body
language” and “did not say a word when [Dr. Thwaites] introduced [himself]
and gave him the disclosure information.” Id. As the interview was beginning,
Dr. Thwaites began asking questions of Mr. Page regarding his developmental
history, however, Mr. Page “responded with many ‘I don’t know’ responses and
was very abrupt in his responses.” Id. Dr. Thwaites then began into the
neurobehavioral status examination, which Mr. Page recorded. Id.
However, Dr. Thwaites reported that “within five minutes of starting the
neurobehavioral status examination, Mr. Page stated that he ‘didn’t feel good’
about this examination, again queried the basis for the evaluation and told [Dr.
Thwaites] that he had ‘one of these just two weeks ago’ with his own expert,
Dr. Kurzman, and that he did not understand why he had to be there for the
examination with Dr. Thwaites. Id. Dr. Thwaites reiterated to Mr. Page the
reason for the examination-that he had been hired by the defense to conduct
and independent examination to understand his current level of functioning
nueropsychologically. Id. However, Mr. Page continued to indicate that he did
not feel good about the examination. Id.
As a result of Mr. Page’s comments, Dr. Thwaites told Mr. Page that he
could take a break at any point and further indicated to Mr. Page that “it was
his choice to either participate in the examination or not, and whether he stay
for the examination or not.” Id. Dr. Thwaites did indicate to Mr. Page that “if

6

he did stay for the examination,” Dr. Thwaites’ “consultation would only be
helpful if he participate[d] fully in the examination, including both the interview
and the testing process.” Id. Mr. Page reiterated to Dr. Thwaites that he “did
not like the idea of being [at the exam] and stated, ‘I can’t even breathe in here,’
referring to the [exam] room.” Id.
After this conversation with Mr. Page, Dr. Thwaites asked Mr. Page if he
wanted to take a break and Mr. Page indicated that he would. Id. Dr. Thwaites
encouraged Mr. Page to “contact his attorney or any other individual that he
would like to discuss the case with” and “urged him to consider whether or not
he would like to stay for the examination” and that “he should talk to his
lawyer about that issue.” Id. After the break, Mr. Page told the office manager
that “this just isn’t going to happen,” that “this should have been the first
examination that I did,” and that Mr. Page had “seen too many doctors [that]
week.” Id. Mr. Page indicated to the officer manager that he did not wish to
continue the examination and left Dr. Thwaites’ office shortly after 9:00 a.m.
Id. Dr. Thwaites indicated in his summary report that the “neurobehavioral
status examination really never got started, and no testing was completed.” Id.
On July 13, 2011, Hertz sent an e-mail to Mr. Page’s counsel regarding
whether Mr. Page would be able to return to Colorado to participate in the IME
with Dr. Thwaites at his own expense and regarding recovering the costs

7

associated with the failed IME originally scheduled with Dr. Thwaites.2 See
Docket No. 47-5 at page 2. Counsel for Mr. Page replied on July 14, 2011,
indicating that it was Mr. Page’s position that “he is not willing to return to
Greeley for an IME with Dr. Thwaites,” but that Mr. Page would only make
himself available for a neuropsychological IME, should Hertz “choose to do one,
at a more convenient location such as in Toronto or upper New York.” Id.
Counsel for Mr. Page also indicated that “due to the circumstances, we are also
not willing to pay for the cost of his travel to such an IME nor will we
reimburse for the failed attempt to get the one done in Colorado,” and that “if
that means a motion, so be it.” Id.
On August 2, 2011, Hertz filed a motion for sanctions or, in the
alternative, to compel, and to extend expert disclosure deadlines arising from
the dispute between the parties regarding the failed IME in Colorado. See
Docket No. 42. Hertz, in their motion, moved this court to dismiss this action
with prejudice, or in the alternative to bar Mr. Page from presenting
neuropsychological evidence in support of his claim at trial. See Docket Nos.
43, 54. Hertz also asks, in the alternative, that this court enter an order
compelling Mr. Page travel to Colorado to complete an IME with Dr. Thwaites at
his own expense and to reimburse Hertz for the cost of the failed IME and

2

The e-mail indicated that counsel for both parties had visited on both
June 20, 2011, and June 29, 2011, about whether Mr. Page would return to
Colorado.
8

partial travel expenses, to extend the deadline for Hertz to designate a
neuropsychologist as an expert, and to compel Dr. Kurzman, Mr. Page’s
physician, to provide Hertz with the raw data Dr. Kurzman used in his
nueropsychological evaluation of Mr. Page . See Docket Nos. 43, 54.
DISCUSSION
A.

Meet-and-Confer Requirement
Hertz asserts that it contacted counsel for Mr. Page prior to filing the

instant motion and attempted, unsuccessfully, to arrive at a mutuallyagreeable solution. See Docket No. 44. Mr. Page does not take issue with this
assertion. Accordingly, the court finds that Hertz has satisfied the meet-andconfer prerequisite to filing the instant discovery motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(1); D.S.D. LR 37.1.
B.

Motion to Compel
Hertz argues that they are entitled to conduct an IME on Mr. Page

because he has placed his nueropsychological condition in issue in this
lawsuit. See Docket No. 43 at page 14. Mr. Page resists the IME, arguing that
because Mr. Page has been seen by his own neuropsychologist, Dr. Kurzman,
and because Hertz has had the opportunity to cross examine Dr. Kurzman in a
deposition, that “Hertz can hardly argue that Plaintiff does not suffer from a
serious brain injury.” See Docket No. 53 at page 13. Additionally, Mr. Page
argues that it is not reasonable to require Mr. Page to travel to Colorado to

9

undergo the IME, but suggests that Hertz should schedule the IME in Toronto
or upper New York. Id.
1.

Standard Applicable to Rule 35 Motions

Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in pertinent 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 custody or under its
legal control.

(2)

Motion and Notice; Contest 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.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a). Once the examination has been performed, the
examiner must produce a written report that details his examination findings
including diagnoses, conclusions, and the results of any tests. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 35(b). This report must be made available to the party who submitted to the

10

examination. Id. No patient-physician privilege applies to the report of the
independent examination. Id.
A party seeking an order for a Rule 35 IME must show two things:
(1) that the plaintiff has put his physical or mental condition “in controversy”
and (2) that there is “good cause” for the IME. Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379
U.S. 104, 117-118 (1964). The movant must show that “the condition as to
which the examination is sought is really and genuinely in controversy and
that good cause exists for ordering each particular examination.” Id. at 118. A
mere showing of relevancy is insufficient to establish “good cause.” Id. In
addition, the court should consider whether the desired information can be
obtained by means other than an IME. Id.
Even if a physical examination is warranted under Rule 35, the moving
party has no absolute right to compel that examination by a particular
physician of its own choosing. McKitis v. DeFazio, 187 F.R.D. 225, 227 (D. Md.
1999); Stinchcomb v. United States, 132 F.R.D. 29, 30 (E.D. Pa. 1990); 8A
Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Richard L. Marcus, Fed. Practice &
Procedure § 2234.2 at 485 (2d ed. 1994) (hereinafter “Wright & Miller”).
However, if there is no serious objection to the examiner selected by the moving
party, it is usually best to appoint the doctor of the moving party’s choice. 8A
Wright & Miller § 2234.2 at 485; Holland v. United States, 182 F.R.D. 493,
494-495 (D.S.C. 1998) (refusing plaintiff’s request that the court appoint

11

someone other than defendant’s chosen physician to conduct the exam where
there was no showing of personal bias on the part of defendant’s physician nor
any allegation that the physician would use discredited or harmful techniques
to examine the plaintiff); DeFazio, 187 F.R.D. at 227 (ordering IME with
defendant’s chosen physician where plaintiff raised no issues as to that
physician’s qualifications to conduct the IME).
The reason for such an approach is that the plaintiff is allowed to select
his or her own doctor to testify as to the plaintiff’s physical condition, so
fairness dictates that the defendant have a similar right. 8A Wright & Miller
§ 2234.2 at 485. Rule 35 is “to be accorded a broad and liberal treatment, to
effectuate the purpose [of the rules of civil procedure] that civil trials in the
federal courts no longer need be carried on in the dark.” Schlagenhauf, 379
U.S. at 114-115; Herrera, 474 F.3d at 690.
Mr. Page’s objections to Dr. Thwaites’ examination of him have nothing
to do with Dr. Thwaites’ qualifications nor does Mr. Page make any allegations
of bias. Rather, Mr. Page objects to the examination on the basis that
(1) Dr. Thwaites is too far away from Mr. Page’s home, and (2) Mr. Page’s doctor
asserts that Mr. Page suffers from a traumatic brain injury, so the question of
Mr. Page’s neuropsychological condition is not truly “in controversy.” The
court addresses these arguments in reverse order.

12

a.

Whether Mr. Page’s Neuropsychological Function is “In
Controversy”

The Supreme Court has held that when a plaintiff in a negligence action
asserts mental or physical injury, he “places that mental or physical injury
clearly in controversy and provides the defendant with good cause [under Rule
35] for an examination to determine the existence and extent of such asserted
injury.” Schlagenhauf, 379 U.S. at 119. See also Holland, 182 F.R.D. at 494
(plaintiff in medical malpractice action who alleged disfigurement and total
disability as a result of malpractice puts his physical condition in controversy
for purposes of Rule 35 exam). Hertz is not bound to accept the opinions of
Mr. Page’s physician on the question of the extent or permanence of Mr. Page’s
brain injury. See Jackson v. Entergy Operations, Inc., 1998 WL 28272, *2
(E.D. La. 1998) (holding that a plaintiff may not avoid an examination on the
grounds that other sources of information, “including reports and depositions
of plaintiff’s treating physicians, are available”). The court concludes that
Mr. Page’s neuropsychological function is genuinely in controversy in this case.
b.

Whether Travel to Colorado is Unduly Burdensome

As to Mr Page’s objection to having to travel from his home in Hillsdale,
Ontario, Canada, to Dr. Thwaites’ office in Greeley, Colorado, the court finds
under the facts of this case that such travel is not unreasonable. Mr. Page
originally agreed to participate in the IMEs in the Denver area, traveled there at
Hertz’s expense, and then failed to participate in the IME with Dr. Thwaites.
13

After attempts by Hertz to reschedule the IME in Denver, counsel for Mr. Page
indicated that Mr. Page would not participate in the IME in Denver, but that
counsel “would be willing to make him available for a neuropsych IME...at a
more convenient location such as in Toronto or in upper New York.” See
Docket No. 47-5. Mr. Page now argues that this communication to counsel
was “merely a suggestion to make it easier and more convenient for [Mr. Page]
rather than going all the way back to Denver.” See Docket No. 53.
Generally, a plaintiff is required to pay his own travel expenses to an
examination in the forum state. See McClosky v. United Parcel Serv. Gen.
Serv. Co., 171 F.R.D. 268, 270 (D. Ore. 1997) (holding that “the general rule is
that the party being examined must pay his or her own travel expenses to an
examination in the forum state”). In this case, Mr. Page chose South Dakota as
the forum to bring his action, therefore, it would not be unreasonable to
require Mr. Page to travel to Rapid City, South Dakota, at his own expense to
participate in an IME.
In this case, Hertz has requested that Mr. Page travel to Denver,
Colorado, to participate in the IME with Dr. Thwaites. Hertz argues that its
selection of a neuropsychologist in the Denver, Colorado, area actually provided
Mr. Page with a “more accessible IME that if it had been scheduled in Rapid
City” because there is a direct flight between Toronto and Denver, “while a

14

flight to Rapid City would likely have required an airplane change in Denver
anyway.” See Docket No. 43 at page 10.
In DeNeui v. Wellman, 2008 WL 4065816, *4-5 (D.S.D. 2008), the court
held that it was not unreasonable for a Minnesota plaintiff, who had brought
suit in the Western Division of the District of South Dakota, to travel to
Omaha, Nebraska to participate in an IME because the travel distance was
significantly shorter that it would have been had the plaintiff been required to
travel to Rapid City, South Dakota. Additionally, in Reed v. Marley, 321
S.W.2d 193, 195 (Ark. 1959), the court held that the mere fact that the IME
requested was out of state did not, by itself, render the request that the
plaintiff participate in the IME unreasonable.
In this case, the court notes that any inconvenience imposed on Mr. Page
by requiring him to meet with Dr. Thwaites in Colorado is ameliorated by
several factors. First, Mr. Page is a named party in this lawsuit, so any
inconvenience to him is part and parcel of the burden he himself has
undertaken to bring these claims to trial. Second, the amount of travel and the
timing of that travel, that Mr. Page has been willing to undertake on his own in
order to consult with his own medical experts in Rapid City, South Dakota, and
Chicago, Illinois; to spend time at the Sturgis motorcycle rally; as well as a
week-long trip to Cuba augers in favor of ordering this IME with Dr. Thwaites.
The same disabling conditions that Mr. Page alleges make travel to Denver

15

difficult for him existed when he traveled roughly the same and far more
significant distances for his own ends. Finally, Hertz went to great lengths to
make the trip to Colorado as convenient for Mr. Page as possible. Hertz paid
the cost of airfare for both Mr. and Mrs. Page; arranged for wheelchair
assistance at the airports; for a hotel, and for shuttle service from the airport to
the hotel and two of the appointments. See Docket No. 43-1.
Given the distances Mr. Page has traveled at his own election while
burdened with the same physical conditions, the court concludes that it is not
unreasonable to require Mr. Page to travel to Colorado for the IME requested by
Hertz. Accordingly, the court will grant Hertz’ motion to compel Mr. Page to
travel to Greeley, Colorado, at his own expense, to participate in the IME with
Dr. Thwaites.
2.

Disclosure of Dr. Kurzman’s Raw Data

Hertz also requests this court to require plaintiffs to disclose the raw
data utilized by Mr. Page’s neuropsychologist, Dr. Kurzman. See Docket Nos.
43, 54. While Mr. Page originally disputed “whether it was customary and
routine to share raw data between Dr. Kurzman or any neuropsychologist and
other professionals,” Mr. Page now concedes that “disclosure of the raw data
used by Dr. Kurzman to a defense expert is warranted.” See Docket No. 53 at
pages 15-16. However, the parties still dispute whether the raw data should

16

be disclosed only to another professional or whether the raw data should be
disclosed without restriction. See Docket Nos. 53, 54.
“As a general rule, the 1993 amendments to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure make clear that documents and information disclosed to a
testifying expert in connection with his testimony are discoverable by the
opposing party, whether or not the expert relies on the documents and
information in preparing his report.” Kooima v. Zacklift Int’l, Inc., 209 F.R.D.
444, 446-47 (D.S.D. 2002). Mr. Page has made it clear that Dr. Kurzman is a
testifying expert in this case. See Docket No. 53 at page 15. As a testifying
expert, Hertz is entitled to all information related to his testimony, including
the raw data used by Dr. Kurzman.
In Sapone v. Grand Targhee Inc., 2000 WL 35615926, *2 (D. Wyo. 2000)
the defendant filed a motion requesting the district court to compel plaintiffs to
produce the raw data used for testing because the information contained
within the raw data served as a “foundation for [the expert’s] opinions and
[was] therefore highly relevant.” The plaintiffs argued that the motion was
moot because the information had already been provided to defendant’s expert
neuropsychologist, with certain restrictions, including that the information not
be copied or distributed and only be used for reference purposes. Id. The
district court granted defendant’s motion to compel disclosure of the raw data
used by plaintiff’s neuropsychologist, rejecting the plaintiff’s attempt to limit

17

any such disclosure of the raw data. Id. The court held that the defendant
was “entitled to cross examine plaintiffs’ expert witnesses on all information
considered by [the] experts [in] arriv[ing] at their ultimate opinions.” Id.; see
also Polich v. Purdential Financial, Inc., 646 F.3d 1116, 1118 (8th Cir. 2011)
(holding that the defendant’s request for raw data from the plaintiff’s IME
examination by his own physician were “reasonable as a matter of law”).
Mr. Page is essentially attempting to limit the use of the raw data utilized
by Dr. Kurzman in the same way the plaintiffs attempted to in Sapone. This
court rejects Mr. Page’s contention for the same reason the court rejected it in
Sapone. Hertz is entitled to cross examine Dr. Kurzman on all the information
he used in arriving at his opinion, including the raw data. Therefore, this court
will grant Hertz’ motion to compel disclosure of Dr. Kurzman’s raw data
without restriction upon its use by Hertz.
C.

Sanctions
Hertz argues that Mr. Page “flatly refused, without justification, to

undergo” the IME with Dr. Thwaites “to which he already agreed.” See Docket
Nos. 54 at page 10. As a result, Hertz asks this court to impose sanctions
upon Mr. Page in the form of dismissing his action. See Docket Nos. 43, 54.
Hertz argues in the alternative that Mr. Page should be barred from “presenting
neuropsychological evidence in support of [his] claim at trial, since [he] has

18

blocked Hertz’ effort to gather its own evidence on the issue.” See Docket No.
54 at page 11. Hertz also requests, in the alternative, that this court order
Mr. Page to pay for his “own transportation to and attendance at a newly
scheduled examination by Dr. Thwaites or to compensate [Hertz] in the amount
of $5,826, representing the $4,750 billed by Dr. Thwaites plus a proportionate
one-third share of the $3,230 travel costs advanced by [Hertz] for all three
Denver examinations.” See Docket No. 43 at page 14. Mr. Page argues that he
made a “genuine effort” to participate in the IME with Dr. Thwaites and that he
“was simply overwhelmed” by the travel arrangements scheduled by Hertz,
which he refers to as “extreme” and a “train wreck,” and by the “nature of his
condition.” See Docket No. 53 at pages 6, 13-14. As a result, Mr. Page argues
that sanctions are not justified. Id. at page 14.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A) authorizes the court where the
action is pending to order sanctions if a party “fails to obey an order to provide
or permit discovery, including an order under Rule...35...” In this case, no
court order was ever entered under Rule 35(a) requiring Mr. Page to participate
in the IME with Dr. Thwaites. Notwithstanding the requirements of Rule 35,
however, “physical and mental examinations are usually arranged by
stipulation of the attorneys, with the rule standing as a compulsory sanction
that helps to produce stipulations.” 8A Wright & Miller § 2234.2 at 485.
“Plaintiffs who voluntarily submit to an examination by a physician selected by

19

defendant waive their rights to insist upon a [Rule 35] motion for an order of
examination.” Id. See also Herrera v. Lufkin Indus., Inc., 474 F.3d 675, 689
(10th Cir. 2007) (finding that a plaintiff’s voluntary submission to an
examination waives their right to insist upon a Rule 35 motion for an order to
compel the examination).
Hertz cites Hardy v. Riser, 309 F.Supp 1234 (D. Miss. 1970) for the
proposition that a court order is not necessarily required for a court to impose
sanctions under Rule 37(b). In Hardy, the defendants obtained a physical
examination of the plaintiff under Rule 35 without court order. Id. at 1235.
The court noted that the “plaintiff agreed to the examination only because he
knew the court would likely order it if he did not agree.” Id. at 1236. The court
stated that “under these circumstances, it is as if an order for physical
examination, under Rule 35, had been entered.” Id.
While this is certainly some support for the proposition that a court order
is not necessary to impose sanctions under Rule 37(b), the majority of courts
deciding similar issues have come to the contrary conclusion. See Swofford v.
Eslinger, 2009 WL 1025223, *2 (M.D. Fla. 2009) (holding that “the provisions of
Rule 37(b) are applicable to failures to comply with a court order”); Ahmed v.
L&W Engineering, Co., 2009 WL 2143799, *2 (E.D. Mich. 2009) (holding that at
the time the plaintiff “failed to attend the IMEs there was no court order
pursuant to [Rule] 35 and no violation of the same” and as such denying

20

sanctions under Rule 37(b)); Sanchez v. M & H Enter., 2007 WL 923686, *3
(D. Nev. 2007) (rejecting plaintiffs’ contention that sanctions may be imposed
under Rule 37(b) even when no court order has been violated); In re WRT
Energy Securities Litigation, 246 F.R.D. 185, 194 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (holding that
Rule 37(b) does not apply when there is no court order requiring plaintiffs to
participate in certain discovery requests); Turner v. Hudson, 1992 WL 51570,
*6 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (“Rule 37(b)(2) requires a prior order, but does not by its
terms specifically require an order issued pursuant to Rule 37(a)...Provided
that there is a clearly articulated order of the court requiring specified discover,
the district court has the authority to impose Rule 37(b) sanctions for
noncompliance with the order.”); Petroleum Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Hartford Acc. &
Indem. Co., 106 F.R.D 59 (D. Mass. 1985) (holding that sanctions could not be
imposed under Rule 37(b) for failure to comply with discovery where no court
order has been entered compelling discovery). As such, this court finds that,
although there is limited authority supporting Hertz’ position, the majority of
courts require a violation of a pre-existing court order to impose sanctions
under Rule 37(b). Therefore, this court finds that Rule 37(b) does not apply in
this case since there was no court order requiring Mr. Page to participate in the
IME with Dr. Thwaites.
Nevertheless, “[t]he Court also possesses inherent power to impose
sanctions in matters arising from discovery abuses.” Doblar v. Unverferth Mfg.

21

Co., Inc., 185 F.R.D. 258, 261 (D.S.D. 1999); see also Sylla-Sawdon v.
Unirolyal Goodrich Tire Co., 47 F.3d 277, 280 (8th Cir. 1995) (holding that the
court has discretion to impose a sanction under its inherent disciplinary
power); Dillon v. Nissan Motor Co., 986 F.2d 263, 267 (8th Cir. 1993) (same).
Courts enjoy the inherent equitable power “to levy sanctions in response to
abusive litigation practices.” Roadway Express, Inc. V. Piper, 447 U.S. 752,
765 (1980); see also Chambers v. NASCO, Ins., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (a court
has authority to “manage [its] own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and
expeditious disposition of cases”).
Based on a review of the material submitted in the briefs by both parties
as well as exhibits documenting the communications between Hertz and
Mr. Page’s counsel, it is clear that the parties had reached an agreement on the
date and time that the IME would take place with Dr. Thwaites and that
Mr. Page had agreed to participate in the IME. Although Mr. Page originally
appeared for his appointment with Dr. Thwaites, the IME was never carried
out. Hertz argues that Mr. Page refused to cooperate with Dr. Thwaites and it
was Mr. Page that terminated the IME. Conversely, Mr. Page argues that he
terminated the IME because of the nature and severity of his injuries and
because Dr. Thwaites made Mr. Page believe it was alright to leave.
Dr. Thwaites’ progress notes as to the scheduled IME with Mr. Page
indicate that Mr. Page arrived at Dr. Thwaites’ office shortly before the

22

scheduled IME. However, Mr. Page was visibly upset upon arrival, was
reluctant to shake Dr. Thwaites’ hand, and did not respond to Dr. Thwaites
when he introduced himself. As the examination began, Dr. Thwaites noted
that Mr. Page was “very abrupt in his responses” and answered several
questions with “I don’t know” responses. Within five minutes of starting the
examination, Mr. Page told Dr. Thwaites that he “didn’t feel good” about the
examination and again asked about the basis for the exam.
After explaining the purpose of the exam, Dr. Thwaites explained to
Mr. Page that he could take a break at any point and that “it was his choice to
either participate in the examination or not” but that if he chose to stay, the
“consultation would only be helpful if he participate[d] fully in the examination,
including both the interview and testing process.” Dr. Thwaites then asked
Mr. Page if he wanted to take a break and Mr. Page indicated that he would.
Dr. Thwaites encouraged Mr. Page to contact his attorney or any other
individual he would like to discuss the case with during the break. Roughly an
hour later, Mr. Page returned and indicated that he did not want to continue
the IME.
Mr. Page asserts, at least in part, that the failed IME was a result of the
“extreme conditions under which [he was] placed.” See Docket No. 53 at page
6. However, based on the record before this court, it appears that Mr. Page

23

exaggerates many of the circumstances and fails to acknowledge his own
statements with regards to the arrangements that were made with Hertz.
First, Mr. Page asserts that his physical condition, including the nature
and severity of his injuries, prevented him from continuing with the IME.
While this court certainly does not minimize in any way the nature and extent
of Mr. Page’s injuries nor the amount or severity of the pain associated with
those injuries, the court finds it compelling that at no point did Mr. Page
mention to Dr. Thwaites that he was in any kind of pain. The only statements
Mr. Page made to Dr. Thwaites was that he “didn’t feel good” about the
examination, that when he was in the office he “[couldn’t] breathe, that “this
should have been the first examination”, and that he had “seen too many
doctors [that] week.” See Docket No. 47-3. At no point did Mr. Page indicate to
Dr. Thwaites that he could not continue the IME because of physical pain, but
rather that he could not participate because he was tired. See Docket No 55-5.
Additionally, this court finds it compelling that Mr. Page has been able to
participate in examinations and consult with his own doctors in both Rapid
City, South Dakota, and Chicago, Illinois, when it was for his own benefit, as
well as to take time to visit the Sturgis motorcycle rally, and to take a weeklong vacation to Cuba. Thus, the court finds that any discomfort Mr. Page may
have been in was not a substantial justification for terminating the IME or,

24

perhaps more significantly, later refusing to reschedule the IME with
Dr. Thwaites in Colorado.
Second, Mr. Page argues that the conditions regarding his travel
arrangements made it difficult for him to sleep well. Mr. Page asserts that
maintenance at the hotel kept him up at night, that he had to take a taxi at his
own expense to the IME with Dr. Thwaites, and that the shuttle service
provided by Hertz was inadequate. See Docket No. 43. There is no indication
in the record, nor does Mr. Page assert, that Hertz took any intentional steps to
make Mr. Page’s stay in Colorado less than acceptable. In fact, the record
indicates just the opposite. Hertz, at great expense, scheduled the flight from
Hillsdale, Ontario, Canada, to Denver, Colorado, arranged for wheelchair
services at the airport, provided shuttle service from the airport to the hotel,
and shuttle services to some of his appointment.
Some hiccups in the plan did occur. The shuttle driver who was to
transport Mr. Page from Denver to Greeley got lost, adding additional time to
the drive. Mr. Page also asserts that he awoke on the morning of May 27 to
attend the IME with Dr. Thwaites and discovered that no transportation had
been scheduled for him and that he “ended up having to hire a taxi cab and
pay for it out of his own pocket.” See Docket No. 53 at page 6. However,
Mr. Page exaggerates this claim as he already knew that no transportation
would be available for him on that date. On May 26, Mr. Page’s counsel

25

informed Hertz that the hotel did not have a shuttle so counsel “advised [Mr.
Page] to take a taxi to Dr. Thwaites’ office in the morning and keep the
receipts.” See Docket No. 55-4. Thus, Mr. Page did not awake on the morning
of May 27 expecting a shuttle to transport him to Dr. Thwaites’ office because
he had been informed the day prior by his own counsel that he would be
required to take a taxi. While the transportation and hotel plans did not go as
Mr. Page would have liked, or as Hertz had planned, this court cannot
conclude, as does Mr. Page, that the arrangements amounted to a “train
wreck.”
Third, Mr. Page argues that he was justified in leaving the scheduled IME
with Dr. Thwaites because Dr. Thwaites told him that he was free to leave and
that “it should come as no surprise that he left.” See Docket No. 53 at page 11.
While the facts certainly indicate, as Mr. Page argues, that Dr. Thwaites told
Mr. Page that he was free to leave, when read in context, it appears to the court
that Dr. Thwaites’ statements regarding Mr. Page’s freedom to leave were based
on Mr. Page’s attitude toward the IME, his general unresponsiveness to the
questions posed by Dr. Thwaites, and his apparent unwillingness to cooperate
in the examination.
Finally, the court considers the fact that Mr. Page refused to work with
Hertz to reschedule the IME with Dr. Thwaites. See Docket No. 47-5. The
e-mail communication between Hertz and counsel for Mr. Page clearly indicates

26

that on more than one occasion Hertz communicated with counsel for Mr. Page
in an attempt to reschedule the IME. Id. Ultimately however, Mr. Page refused
to cooperate and suggested that he would only make himself available if the
IME were to take place in “Toronto or upper New York.” Id. Furthermore,
Mr. Page also indicated that he was not willing to cover the costs of any
rescheduled IME nor would he reimburse the costs of the failed IME and
indicated that “[i]f that means a motion, so be it.” Id.
Based on the totality of the circumstances, the court finds that
Mr. Page’s failure to participate in the previously agreed-upon IME with
Dr. Thwaites was not substantially justified and that any such conditions set
forth by Mr. Page as justification for failing to complete the IME were
exaggerated and unjustified. Additionally, the court finds it compelling that
while Mr. Page argues he was justified in leaving the scheduled IME with
Dr. Thwaites, Mr. Page thereafter refused to work with Hertz to reschedule the
IME and essentially invited Hertz to file this motion. Finally, based on the facts
and circumstances surrounding the IME and attempts to reschedule the IME,
this court finds that Mr. Page has engaged in litigation practices for the
purpose of preventing Hertz from obtaining information pertinent to the
litigation. As such this court find that sanctions are appropriate.
Hertz asserts that “the most appropriate [sanction] would be dismissal of
the complaint.” See Docket No. 43 at page 12. Dismissal of a lawsuit is a

27

particularly severe sanction. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44
(1991). In Menz v. New Holland North America, Inc., 440 F.3d 1002, 1006 (8th
Cir. 2006) the court held that it would be “unreasonable to excuse a finding of
bad faith when imposing a more severe sanction, the outright dismissal of a
plaintiff’s case.” Additionally, in deciding whether to dismiss an action, the
court must consider whether there is any less severe sanction that will
“adequately remedy the effect of the delay on the court and the prejudice to the
opposing party.” Mann v. Lewis, 180 F.3d 145, 147 (8th Cir. 1997). In this
case, the court finds that outright dismissal of Mr. Page’s case would be
imprudent and that a less severe sanction is more appropriate.
Hertz argues, in the alternative, that “in the event that this Court finds
that dismissal of the entire action is not appropriate, and if Gary Page won’t
appear for the neuropsychological IME, the Court should prohibit Plaintiffs
from presenting their own nueropsychological evidence...” See Docket No. 43
at 13-14. As indicated above, this court has granted Hertz’ motion to compel
Mr. Page to travel to Colorado to participate in the IME with Dr. Thwaites.
Thus, this court will not, at this juncture in the case, enter an order
prohibiting Mr. Page from introducing nueropsychological evidence at trial.
As a final alternative, Hertz requests compensation “in the amount of
$5,826, representing the $4,750 billed by Dr. Thwaites plus a proportionate
one-third share of the $3,230 travel costs advanced” by Hertz for Mr. Page to

28

participate in the three examinations in Denver and Greeley, Colorado. See
Docket No. 43 at page 14. Mr. Page argues that the $4,750 billed by
Dr. Thwaites is unreasonable and further argues that he should not be
assessed travel costs since “the travel costs would have been approximately the
same” even if no IME had been scheduled with Dr. Thwaites. See Docket No.
53 at page 17.
Mr. Page cites Beecham v. City of West Sacramento, 2009 WL 689729,
*3-4 (E.D. Cal. 2009) for the proposition that Dr. Thwaites’ fee should be
reduced. In Beecham, the district court held that “an award of monetary
sanctions must be reasonable.” Id. at *3. The court in Beecham ordered the
parties who failed to appear at IMEs to pay cancellation fees, however, the
court reduced the fee based on the facts of that case, including that the exams
were scheduled to begin at “3:00 p.m. and it was unreasonable to assume that
[the] exam would proceed past 5:00 p.m.” Id. Therefore, the court held that a
“cancellation fee reflecting more than a two-hour examination [was] not
reasonable.” Id.
This case is distinguishable from Beecham in that the IME with
Dr. Thwaites was scheduled from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., far longer than the
two hours scheduled in Beecham. While the fees must be reasonable, this
court cannot say that Dr. Thwaites fee of $4,750 is unreasonable. See Hedrick
v. County of Trinity, 2010 WL 4823810 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (holding that

29

$7,383.95 in fees and expenses related to a deposition and IME was an
appropriate monetary sanction); Hogge v. A.W. Chesterton Co., 2007 WL
2854500, *5 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (holding that an award of $6,200 to cover
foreseeable expert witness cancellation fees was appropriate); Parker v. Piper,
2006 WL 1659745, *7-8 (D. Colo. 2006) (ordering plaintiff to pay the
defendants’ IME expenses as a result of plaintiff failing to appear for two
scheduled IMEs). Therefore, this court will order Mr. Page to reimburse Hertz
$4,750. The travel expenses for Mr. Page would have been the same for Hertz
whether two IMEs or three took place. Therefore, the court will not order
Mr. Page to reimburse Hertz any travel expenses.
Mr. Page also has filed a request for oral argument with respect to Hertz’s
motion for sanctions pursuant to D.S.D. Civ. LR 7.1C. See Docket No. 58.
Local Rule 7.1C states that “oral argument shall be had only upon order of the
court.” The courts finds that the written record in this case is sufficient and
finds that oral argument on the motion for sanctions is not necessary for the
court to rule on the motion. Therefore, Mr. Page’s request for oral argument
will be denied.
D.

Motion to Extend Expert Designation Deadlines
Hertz also requests this court to extend the deadline for Hertz to

designate a neuropsychologist as an expert in this case. See Docket Nos. 43,
54. Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs this dispute. Rule

30

16 requires the district court to issue an order setting deadlines for various
stages of the litigation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(1) (requiring that the court set
deadlines for joining parties, amending pleadings, and filing motions, and
allowing the district court to set additional deadlines). A court may modify the
schedule upon a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).
Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure controls the granting of an
extension of time. That rule provides in pertinent part as follows:
(b)

Extending Time.
(1)
In General. When an act may or must be done within
a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend
the time:
(A)
with or without motion or notice if the court
acts, or if a request is made, before the original
time or its extension expires; or
(B)
on motion made after the time has expired if the
party failed to act because of excusable neglect.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) (emphasis added). Both Rule 6 and Rule 16 must be
interpreted in a manner so as to achieve the “just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination of every action.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
The deadline for Hertz to designate experts had not passed when the
motion to extend the deadline was filed by Hertz.3 Because Hertz filed their
motion to extend their expert designation deadline prior to the expiration of

3

The scheduling deadline for identifying experts was October 3, 2011.
See Docket No. 39. Hertz filed its motion for sanctions or in the alternative, to
compel and to extend expert disclosure deadline on August 2, 2011. See
Docket No. 43.
31

that deadline, Hertz need only demonstrate “good cause;” they do not have to
also demonstrate excusable neglect.
The good cause standard for extending deadlines under Rule 16 requires
that the moving party demonstrate diligence in attempting to meet the court’s
deadline. Bradford v. Dana Corp., 249 F.3d 807, 809 (8th Cir. 2001). “ ‘[T]he
existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification’ and
other factors may also affect the decision.” Id. (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth
Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)).
Here, Hertz moved for an extension of the expert designation deadline
prior to the expiration of that deadline. The reason for the requested extension
was the parties’ inability to agree to reschedule Mr. Page’s failed IME with
Hertz’ expert, Dr. Thwaites, despite repeated attempts by Hertz. See Docket
No. 43-5. The court has now resolved that issue in favor of Hertz.
Mr. Page does not address Hertz’ request for an extension of the
deadlines for expert disclosure in his reply to Hertz’ motion. In view of
Mr. Page’s lack of objection to this request, and the additional discovery which
Hertz indicates has still not been completed, the court finds that there is good
cause for Hertz’ request and no prejudice to Mr. Page.
The scheduling deadlines in this case are the exclusive province of the
district court. However, this court will recommend extending Hertz’ expert
designation deadline.

32

CONCLUSION
Based on the forgoing discussion, Hertz’s motion is granted in part and
denied in part as follows. It is hereby
ORDERED that Hertz’ motion to compel Mr. Page to participate in an
IME is granted. Mr. Page shall make himself available and attend an
independent medical examination by Dr. Thwaites in Greeley, Colorado, at a
date and time mutually acceptable to Hertz and Dr. Thwaites, within 45 days of
this order. Mr. Page shall bear all travel and lodging expenses related to the
IME. It is further
ORDERED that Mr. Page shall immediately make available to Hertz and
Dr. Thwaites the raw data utilized by his own nueropsychologist, Dr. Kurzman.
It is further
ORDERED that Mr. Page shall pay $4,750 to Hertz, representing the
amount billed by Dr. Thwaites to Hertz as a result of Mr. Page’s refusal to
undergo the previously scheduled IME. Hertz’s request to dismiss the Pages’
complaint or, in the alternative, bar Mr. Page from introducing
neuropsychological evidence at trial is denied. It is further
ORDERED that Mr. Page’s request for oral argument on the motion for
sanctions is denied. It is further
ORDERED that Hertz shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and
costs for bringing this motion to compel. Hertz shall file an affidavit with proof

33

of service setting forth the time reasonably spent on the present motion, the
hourly rate requested for attorney’s fees and costs, and any factual matters
pertinent to the motion for attorney’s fees within twenty-one days of this order.
Mr. Page shall file any and all objections to the allowance of fees within
fourteen calendar days after receipt of service of Hertz’s motion and affidavit.
Mr. Page may, by counter affidavit, controvert any of the factual matters
contained in Hertz’ motion and may assert any factual matters bearing on the
award of attorney’s fees. D.S.D. LR 54.1(C). Hertz shall have seven days
thereafter to file a reply. Finally, it is
RECOMMENDED that the district court extend Hertz’s deadline for
disclosing its expert opinions by 90 days, and that all deadlines following this
disclosure be likewise extended.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), any party may seek reconsideration
of this order before the district court upon a showing that the order is clearly
erroneous or contrary to law. The parties have fourteen (14) days after service
of this order to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A),
unless an extension of time for good cause is obtained. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Failure to file timely objections will result in
the waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. Id. Objections must be
timely and specific in order to require review by the district court. Thompson

34

v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356 (8th Cir. 1990); Nash v. Black, 781 F.2d 665 (8th Cir.
1986).
Dated November 15, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
/s/

Veronica L. Duffy

VERONICA L. DUFFY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

35