IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 1, 2009
T.B., A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS PARENT, G.B., PLAINTIFF,
CHICO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
On March 31, 2009, a telephonic hearing was held on Plaintiff's motion to stay the Magistrate Judge's Order, which was filed on March 26, 2009 ("MJ's March 26 Order"). Plaintiff argued at the hearing that the MJ's March 26 Order is not final because Plaintiff is authorized to seek reconsideration of that Order within ten days under Local Rule 72-303(b). However, that rule authorizes a judge to prescribe a "different time." The parties have stipulated that Defendant's psychiatrist, Dr. Kliman, will conduct an independent medical examination ("IME") of Plaintiff commencing on April 1, 2009, at 10:00 a.m. This stipulation indicates the parties' understanding that their disputes involving the IME would be decided promptly.
The parties dispute whether Dr. Kliman can use a small video camera during the IME. The MJ's March 26 Order deciding this dispute was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, and is therefore affirmed.
The portion of the MJ's March 26 Order requiring Plaintiff's mother, G.B., to "assist Dr. Kliman in the examination of [P]laintiff to the extent such assistance is necessary for Dr. Kliman to conduct a reasonable examination of [P]laintiff," was not affirmed at the March 31, 2009 hearing in light of Plaintiff's objection; Plaintiff argued this portion of the MJ's March 26 Order is tantamount to authorizing discovery without Plaintiff's counsel being present. However, "[t]he Court [now] believes that the circumstances of this case require [G.B.] to answer questions concerning [Plaintiff's] medical history [at his IME]." Cutting v. U.S., 2008 WL 5064267 *2 (D. Colo. 2008). Therefore, G.B. shall respond to questions concerning Plaintiff's medical history at Plaintiff's IME.
Further, Plaintiff requested the above rulings be stayed so that Plaintiff has time to pursue a writ from the Ninth Circuit. This request is denied.
Plaintiff also objects to the monetary sanctions for discovery violations issued in the MJ's March 26 Order. However, the sanctions issue was not reached at the telephonic conference since Plaintiff's counsel requested more time to brief this issue.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.