Here, plaintiff seek a mental health examination to assess (1) Heimsness’s claim of tunnel vision and auditory exclusion, which defendants assert Heimsness experienced at the time he shot Heenan and (2) the severity and date of origin of Heimsness’s alleged post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). To obtain a Rule 35 examination, a party seeking an examination must show that each condition for which the examination is sought is “genuinely in controversy” and that “good cause exists for ordering the examination.” Schlagenhauf v. 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. (2) Motion and Notice Contents of the Order. The court has the same authority to order a party to produce for examination a person who is in its custody or under its legal control. is in controversy to submit to a physical or mental examination by a suitably licensed or certified examiner. The court where the action is pending may order a party whose mental or physical condition. Rule 35 Standard Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35(a) provides in pertinent part (a) Order for an Examination. For the reasons explained below, the court will also allow the examiner to consider and evaluate Heimsness for any mental or physical health issue that may reasonably assist in assessing this claim, but expressly declines to direct that the examination specifically include or exclude Heimsness’s claimed PTSD. In granting this motion, the court finds that plaintiff’s request meets the requirements of Rule 35, but expressly reserves on the relevance or admissibility at trial of any opinion on this subject, whether offered by defendant or plaintiff. #24.) The court was initially inclined to deny the request given that a defense of tunnel vision and/or auditory exclusion had only been eluded to in certain discovery responses, but now that defendant has served an expert report opining on the role of these conditions in Heimsness’s shooting of Paul Heenan, the court will order an examination limited to the claim that tunnel vision and auditory exclusion may have played a role in the shooting. Before the court is plaintiff’s motion for an independent mental examination of defendant Stephen Heimsness pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35. 13-cv-606-wmc THE CITY OF MADISON and STEPHEN HEIMSNESS, Defendants. 84 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN THE ESTATE OF PAUL HEENAN, by Personal Representative John Heenan, Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |