From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Eaglesmith v. Ray

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 19, 2012
Case No. 2:11-CV-00098-JAM-JFM (E.D. Cal. Jul. 19, 2012)

Opinion

Case No. 2:11-CV-00098-JAM-JFM

07-19-2012

JERALD CLINTON (J.C.) EAGLESMITH, RAMONA EAGLESMITH, EILEEN COX, and BRUCE BARNES, Plaintiffs, v. JEFF RAY, as an individual, SUE SEGURA, as an individual, and BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF PLUMAS COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION/ PLUMAS COUNTY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendants.

SIEGEL & YEE Peter Haberfeld Attorneys for Plaintiffs STUBBS & LEONE Brian Duus Attorneys for Defendants


DAN SIEGEL, SBN 56400

PETER HABERFELD, SBN 41723

MICHAEL SIEGEL, SBN 269439

SIEGEL & YEE

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

JERALD CLINTON (J.C.) EAGLESMITH,

RAMONA EAGLESMITH,

EILEEN COX, and BRUCE BARNES

FIRST AMENDED STIPULATION AND

ORDER TO PRODUCE INDEPENDENT

MEDICAL EXAMINER TESTS AND

TEST RESULTS TO PARTIES,

PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 35(b)(1)

and (5)

Plaintiffs J.C. Eaglesmith, Eileen Cox and Bruce Barnes allege in their Complaint that defendants' conduct caused them emotional distress. Because they thereby placed their mental condition at issue, they agreed to submit to an independent medical examination by defendants' expert Dr. Jeff Gould. In the course of examining each plaintiff, Dr. Gould conducted various psychological tests, and enlisted Dr. Bronson to analyze the results.

Plaintiffs have requested that defendants produce the tests and test results in order that plaintiffs can prepare cross examination of Dr. Gould and any other defendant expert that relies on those tests and test results. According to defendant's attorneys, Dr. Gould believes that the ethical rules of the American Psychiatric Association preclude him from sharing "the test and raw data results" with anyone other than a licensed clinical psychologist or psychiatrist.

On July 27, 2011, the parties entered a Stipulation for Protective Order (Dkt. No. 47). The Court signed the Order on July 29, 2011.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 35(b)(1) entitles the person examined to be provided with a copy of the medical examiner's written report and requires that the report include "in detail* * * the results of any tests." Rule35(b)(5) grants to the Court the authority to order on motion that the party deliver the report, as defined by Rule 35(b)(1), and "[i]f the report is not provided, the court may exclude the examiner's testimony at trial."

Therefore, plaintiffs and defendants hereby stipulate that the Court enter an Order that directs Dr. Jeff Gould to produce the tests and test results to the parties' attorneys.

SIEGEL & YEE

By: ______________________

Peter Haberfeld

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

STUBBS & LEONE

By: ______________________

Brian Duus

Attorneys for Defendants

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________

John A. Mendez

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Eaglesmith v. Ray

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 19, 2012
Case No. 2:11-CV-00098-JAM-JFM (E.D. Cal. Jul. 19, 2012)
Case details for

Eaglesmith v. Ray

Case Details

Full title:JERALD CLINTON (J.C.) EAGLESMITH, RAMONA EAGLESMITH, EILEEN COX, and BRUCE…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jul 19, 2012

Citations

Case No. 2:11-CV-00098-JAM-JFM (E.D. Cal. Jul. 19, 2012)