Selvar et al v. Western Towboat Company et al
Filing
50
ORDER granting dfts' 33 Joint Motion to Compel and for Protective Order; Discovery completed by 12/27/2012, Dispositive motions due by 1/24/2013, Expert Witness Disclosure/Reports under FRCP 26(a)(2) due by 12/5/2012, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
6
7
JAMES RICHARD SELVAR,
8
9
10
11
Case No. C12-349RSL
Plaintiff,
v.
WESTERN TOWBOAT COMPANY, et
al.,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO COMPEL AND MOTION
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Defendants.
12
I. INTRODUCTION
13
14
This matter comes before the Court on “Defendants’ Joint Motion to Compel
15
FRCP 35 Exam and for Protective Order Re: FRCP 34 Inspection” (Dkt. # 33). This
16
17
18
case involves claims of negligence under the Jones Act, unseaworthiness, and failure to
pay maintenance and cure. Plaintiff James Richard Selvar alleges that he suffered
serious injuries to his back, neck, and spine while working on a barge owned by
defendant Alaska Railbelt Marine (“Alaska”) during his employment with defendant
19
20
21
Western Towboat Company (“Western Towboat”). Western Towboat and Alaska
(collectively “Defendants”) seek an order compelling plaintiff to undergo a Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 35 examination. Defendants also seek a protective order
22
restricting plaintiff’s inspection of the barge on which he worked to an inspection of the
23
barge in an empty condition, rather than in a fully loaded condition.
24
25
26
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO COMPEL AND MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER- 1
1
2
For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to
compel and motion for protective order.
II. DISCUSSION
3
4
5
6
7
A. Rule 35 Examination
Defendants ask the Court to order plaintiff to submit to a Rule 35 examination by
Dr. John Burns of the Multispecialty Panel. Motion (Dkt. # 33) at 5. Plaintiff does not
dispute that a medical examination is appropriate. Rather, he seeks to attach two
conditions to the examination. Response (Dkt. # 38) at 8-10. First, plaintiff seeks to
8
limit the examination to two hours. Id. at 9. Second, plaintiff requests to videotape the
9
10
examination. Id. at 9-10.2
Rule 35 provides that “[t]he court where the action is pending may order a party
11
whose mental or physical condition...is in controversy to submit to a physical or mental
12
examination by a suitably licensed or certified examiner.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1).
13
Before the Court may order a Rule 35 exam, it must determine whether the moving
14
party has established the existence of the Rule’s requirements of “in controversy” and
15
“good cause.” Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 118-19 (1964). In some
16
situations the pleadings alone are sufficient to meet these requirements. Id. at 119. For
17
example, a “plaintiff in a negligence action who asserts mental or physical
18
injury...places that mental or physical injury clearly in controversy and provides
19
defendant with good cause for an examination to determine the existence and extent of
20
21
such asserted injury.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
In his Complaint, plaintiff asserts that he has “suffered losses including physical,
mental, emotional injuries, loss of enjoyment...[and he] is permanently disabled as a
22
23
24
2
Plaintiff also requests that the Court “rule that Dr. Burns’ 1099 forms resulting from
his performance of FRCP 35 examinations are discoverable.” Response at 12. For the reasons
set forth by Defendants, see Reply (Dkt. # 41) at 6, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s request as
improperly raised. See CR 7.
25
26
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO COMPEL AND MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER- 2
1
result of Defendant’s (sic) actions and will never be able to return to full time work.”
2
Complaint (Dkt. #1) at ¶ 20. Plaintiff does not dispute that his mental and physical
3
condition is “in controversy.” Response at 2-3. Based on plaintiff’s pleadings and his
4
apparent agreement that his medical and physical condition is “in controversy,” the
5
6
7
Court finds that the Defendants have met the first requirement.
The Court also finds that Defendants have shown “good cause” to compel a Rule
35 examination of plaintiff. “Good cause exists to order an examination where a movant
makes an affirmative showing that the [medical examination] could adduce certain facts
8
relevant to the action, and that the [medical examination] is necessary to the parties’
9
10
case.” Breed v. Vons Co., Inc., 2012 WL 2860688, at *3 (D. Nev. July 11, 2012).
Defendants’ request is based on the need “to determine the existence and extent of
11
plaintiff’s claimed injury and disability.” Motion at 6. The Court finds that the
12
existence and extent of plaintiff’s injuries is central to his negligence claims and
13
Defendants’ defenses to those claims.
14
Plaintiff does not dispute that a Rule 35 examination is appropriate, but he seeks
15
to attach two conditions to the examination. In response to plaintiff’s first request, that
16
the examination be limited two hours, Defendants have agreed that the examination will
17
last no longer than two hours, plus fifteen minutes for plaintiff to check-in. Id. at 5. As
18
for plaintiff’s request to videotape the examination, the Court finds that plaintiff has not
19
presented any evidence or authority that suggests that Dr. Burns will be less than
20
21
impartial. Furthermore, Defendants have already agreed to allow plaintiff to have an
“unobtrusive observer present at the exam.” Id. Therefore, the Court denies plaintiff’s
request to videotape the examination.
22
The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff to submit to a Rule
23
35 examination. The plaintiff is ordered to undergo a medical examination with Dr.
24
25
26
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO COMPEL AND MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER- 3
1
Burns at the Multispecialty Panel at a mutually agreeable time, on a mutually agreeable
2
date. The medical examination will be no longer than two hours, plus fifteen minutes
3
for check-in. The scope of the examination is limited to the assessment of “plaintiff’s
4
current medical condition (specifically, his lower back), the cause of that condition, its
5
6
7
nature and extent, its severity, the necessity of treatment, any limitations plaintiff
experiences...[whether] he has reached maximum medical improvement and when that
occurred.” Motion at 2-3. Plaintiff is not permitted to videotape the exam.
B.
Protective Order
8
On August 16, 2012, plaintiff requested to inspect Western Towboat’s tugboat,
9
10
and Alaska’s barge fully loaded with railcars, under Rule 34. Declaration of Mark A.
Krishner, Ex. 7. Defendants objected to plaintiff’s request to inspect the tugboat and
11
plaintiff has since withdrawn that part of his request. Id. at Ex. 1. Defendants also
12
objected to plaintiff’s request to inspect the barge in a fully loaded condition due to
13
safety concerns and the railroad’s objection to the request. Id. at Ex. 9. However,
14
Defendants offered to find a time for plaintiff to inspect the empty barge. Id.
15
When parties do not agree whether a request for inspection is appropriate, “the
16
degree to which the proposed inspection will aid in the search for truth must be balanced
17
against the burdens and dangers created by the inspection.” New York State Ass’n for
18
Retarded Children Inc. v. Carey, 706 F.2d 956, 961 (2d Cir. 1983) (quoting Belcher v.
19
Bassett Furniture Indus., Inc., 588 F.2d 904, 908 (4th Cir. 1978)). The party objecting
20
21
to the discovery has the burden of establishing that the burdens and dangers outweigh
the potential aid in the search for truth. McDonald v. Kellog Co., 2011 WL 484191, at
*2 (D. Kan. Feb. 7, 2011).
22
Defendants do not dispute that an inspection of the barge will assist in the search
23
for truth. See Motion at 7. However, Defendants seek a protective order limiting the
24
25
26
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO COMPEL AND MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER- 4
1
inspection of the barge to that of the barge in an empty rather loaded condition.
2
Defendants argue that inspecting a fully loaded barge poses significant safety risks and
3
dangers. Id. at 7-8. Rule 34 permits inspection of defendant’s property unless the
4
defendant “makes a particularized showing” that the proposed inspection would create
5
6
7
an undue burden or danger. McDonald, 2011 WL 484191, at *2 (internal quotations
omitted). The Court finds that Defendants have made a sufficient showing that
inspecting the barge in a fully loaded capacity would place Defendants’ employees and
the parties and their experts at risk. See Motion at 7. Defendants have presented
8
evidence that the deck gear, rail tracks, and railcars present risks of tripping and falling,
9
10
particularly for people who are not accustomed to maneuvering around such obstacles.
Declaration of David Byrne (Dkt. # 36) at 2. The Court finds that Defendants’ offer to
11
allow plaintiff to inspect the barge in an unloaded condition is an appropriate
12
compromise that will aid in the search for truth and decrease the potential risks
13
associated with inspecting the barge.
14
Balancing the potential safety risks with the potential benefits of the discovery,
15
the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for protective order. Plaintiff may proceed
16
with an inspection of the barge in an empty condition. Plaintiff may not inspect the
17
barge in a loaded condition. The inspection shall take place at mutually agreeable time,
18
on a mutually agreeable day.
19
C.
20
21
Deadlines
Defendants and plaintiff seek an extension of the deadline to disclose expert
witness reports. Motion at 7; Response at 12. The Court GRANTS the parties’ request
and based on this extension, amends the scheduling order as follows:
22
23
Reports from expert witnesses under FRCP 26(a)(2) due
24
25
26
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO COMPEL AND MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER- 5
December 5, 2012
1
Discovery completed by
December 27, 2012
2
All dispositive motions must be filed by
and noted on the motion calendar no later than the
fourth Friday thereafter (see CR 7(d)(3))
January 24, 2013
3
III. CONCLUSION
4
5
6
7
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to
compel a Rule 35 examination of plaintiff and motion for protective order (Dkt. # 33).
The Court hereby extends the deadline for expert witness reports to December 5, 2012,
the discovery cutoff to December 27, 2012, and the deadline for filing dispositive
8
motions to January 24, 2013.
9
10
DATED this 2nd day of November, 2012.
11
12
13
A
14
Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO COMPEL AND MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER- 6
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?