Dias v. Dias
- Edward Chen
- 3:24-cv-04471
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Dias v. Dias, Judge Chen granted in part and denied in part a motion seeking mental examinations of three children and the respondent.
The petitioner, the respondent, and the three children were affected. The respondent was not required to undergo a mental examination; each child could undergo one examination lasting no more than one hour, subject to the court’s stated conditions and deadlines.
What happened
In Dias v. Dias, the petitioner asked to have each of his three children and the respondent undergo mental examinations. The parties agreed that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 governed the request.
The court found that the respondent’s mental condition was not sufficiently involved in the case to justify an examination. It found that the children’s mental conditions were sufficiently involved, including because the respondent had raised a defense that returning them to Armenia would expose them to a serious risk of physical or psychological harm.
Judge Edward Chen denied the request to examine the respondent and granted the request to examine the children. Each child could be examined once for no more than one hour by the petitioner’s expert, Dr. Favaro, subject to additional requirements about the examinations’ location, observation, recording, timing, and completion.
The detailed version
- Dias v. Dias · No. 3:24-cv-04471
- Edward Chen
- Oct. 1, 2024
Background
The petitioner moved for mental examinations of the respondent and the parties’ three children. The parties agreed that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 governed the motion. That rule permits a court to order a mental examination when a party’s mental condition is in controversy and allows a party to be required to produce for examination a person in that party’s custody or legal control.
Court’s analysis
The court held that the respondent’s mental condition was not in controversy, so an examination of the respondent was not warranted. The court held that the children’s mental conditions were sufficiently in controversy to justify examinations. The respondent had alleged that returning the children to Armenia would expose them to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm and place them in an intolerable situation. The court explained that the respondent’s burden to establish that defense did not prevent the petitioner from seeking discovery related to it. The court also stated that it found no authority barring competing expert examinations and that a blanket prohibition could raise due-process concerns.
Ruling and examination conditions
The court granted in part and denied in part the petitioner’s motion for mental examinations. It denied the motion as to the respondent and granted it as to the children.
The examinations of the children could be conducted by the petitioner’s expert, Dr. Favaro. The court stated that any argument about whether Dr. Favaro had sufficient training in trauma or in treating children exposed to or witnessing parental abuse could be made at trial. The court found that Dr. Favaro appeared to have experience in child and adolescent psychology sufficient to conduct the examinations.
Each child could be examined once, rather than twice, and each examination could last no more than one hour. The parties were ordered to meet and confer in good faith about the examinations’ location, whether an independent third-party observer could attend, and whether the examinations could be recorded. They had to report their efforts by 9:00 a.m. on October 2, 2024, and, if they could not agree, state their last compromise offer. The examinations had to be completed by 5:00 p.m. on October 5, 2024, so that Dr. Favaro could provide a rebuttal report by 9:00 a.m. on October 6, 2024.
The court warned that a party who failed to meet and confer in good faith or acted unreasonably risked sanctions. It also ordered counsel to give their clients a copy of the order and discuss all of its terms with them, including the sanctions risk. Judge Edward Chen stated that the parties’ extreme positions were disfavored and expected future pretrial filings to be handled in a civil and reasonable manner.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.