Tavantzis v. American Airlines, Inc.

Background

American Airlines, Inc. asked the court to compel Plaintiff Ana Maria Marcela Tavantzis to undergo two mental examinations, the MMPI-2 and MCMI-III. The request arose from Tavantzis’s claim for loss of consortium and her request for damages based on emotional distress.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 allows a court to order a party to undergo a physical or mental examination when the party’s condition is in controversy and there is good cause for the examination. The parties agreed that Tavantzis’s mental condition was in controversy, so the court considered only whether good cause existed for each requested examination.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that good cause requires showing that an examination could produce specific facts relevant to the claim and necessary to the requesting party’s case. Courts generally consider whether the information can be obtained by other means, whether the plaintiff plans to use expert testimony, whether the requested examinations are relevant, and whether the plaintiff claims continuing emotional distress. The requesting party must show that there is no less intrusive method of obtaining the relevant information, and good cause must be shown for each examination. The number of examinations should be limited to the minimum necessary, considering privacy concerns and the need for accurate information.

The court found good cause for both examinations. First, it was not clear that American Airlines could adequately evaluate Tavantzis’s mental and emotional condition through her medical and therapy records, deposition testimony, and the MMPI-3 test previously administered by her expert. American Airlines’s expert stated that the MMPI-3 results provided an incomplete picture of Tavantzis’s condition. The court therefore declined to bar American Airlines from conducting its own independent examination.

Second, the court found both examinations relevant. American Airlines’s expert stated that the MCMI-III and MMPI-2 are routinely administered together in forensic evaluations to provide a comprehensive assessment of emotional, intellectual, and personality functioning and to support a more accurate psychological opinion. The court rejected Tavantzis’s argument that good cause existed for at most one examination.

Third, the court found that Tavantzis would face minimal burden. American Airlines offered to conduct the examinations virtually, and its expert estimated that the testing, including instructions and breaks, would take no more than three hours.

Disposition

For good cause shown and in the exercise of its discretion, the court ordered Tavantzis to sit for the MMPI-2 and MCMI-III examinations requested by American Airlines. The parties were ordered to meet and confer to select a date, and the examinations were to be administered by November 1, 2024. The court resolved the discovery dispute without oral argument.