Hunt v. Sunrise Operations LLC
- Susan Illston
- 3:23-cv-06441
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Hunt v. Sunrise Operations LLC, Judge Illston denied defendants’ request to compel Andrew Hunt to undergo a psychological examination under Rule 35.
The ruling affects defendants’ request to have Andrew Hunt undergo a psychological examination; the court denied that request.
What happened
Hunt v. Sunrise Operations LLC concerns Andrew Hunt’s claims that defendants refused to consider accommodating his religious objection to receiving the Covid-19 vaccine and terminated him. He seeks damages for emotional distress and related harm under Title VII and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.
Sunrise Operations requested a psychological examination under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35. Hunt opposed the request, arguing that his complaint used general language, that he had not received mental-health care, that he would not call an expert, and that he was not claiming damages for ongoing emotional distress.
Judge Susan Illston denied the request. She concluded that defendants had not shown a specific mental injury, unusually severe emotional distress, an emotional-distress claim, planned expert testimony, or another factor placing Hunt’s mental condition in controversy. The court also noted that Hunt had not yet been deposed.
The detailed version
- Hunt v. Sunrise Operations LLC · No. 3:23-cv-06441
- Susan Illston
- Sept. 5, 2025
Background
Andrew Hunt brings claims for religious discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Hunt alleges that defendants refused to consider accommodating his religious beliefs against receiving the Covid-19 vaccine and terminated him as a result.
In his third amended complaint, Hunt alleges humiliation, mental anguish, emotional and physical distress, and injury to his mind and body. He also alleges continuing emotional distress, embarrassment, mental anguish, and physical symptoms, with damages to be proved at trial.
The Discovery Dispute
The parties submitted separate discovery-dispute letters about whether Hunt should undergo a psychological examination. Sunrise Operations, LLC requested the examination because Hunt alleged emotional distress and sought emotional-distress damages. Hunt opposed the request, arguing that the complaint used boilerplate language, that he had not obtained mental-health care, that he would not call an expert, and that he claimed no damages for ongoing emotional distress.
Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35(a) allows a court to order a party to undergo a physical or mental examination by a suitably licensed examiner. The requesting party must show both that the person’s physical or mental condition is “in controversy”—meaning directly relevant to the dispute—and that there is good cause for the examination. The district court has broad discretion in deciding whether to order one.
The court explained that courts in the district commonly consider whether a case involves factors beyond an ordinary, or “garden variety,” emotional-distress claim. Those factors include a claim for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress; a specific mental injury or disorder; unusually severe emotional distress; planned expert testimony supporting the emotional-distress claim; or the plaintiff’s agreement that the mental condition is in controversy.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that defendants had not shown any of those factors. Hunt did not assert a claim for infliction of emotional distress or allege a specific mental injury or psychological disorder. The court also found that he was claiming only the type of emotional distress an ordinary person might experience, not unusually severe distress, and that he said he did not plan to call an expert.
The court further noted that the discovery letters indicated defendants had not yet deposed Hunt, so the record was not complete. The court was not persuaded that allegations of some ongoing emotional distress, standing alone, justified a psychological examination. It distinguished a cited case in which the plaintiff asserted an emotional-distress claim and described specific conditions including sleeplessness, anxiety, tension, and depression. Hunt made no similar allegations and clarified that he claimed no damages for ongoing emotional distress.
Disposition
The request for an order compelling Hunt to undergo a psychological examination under Rule 35 was denied.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.