Purnell v. Rudolph and Sletten Inc.
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:18-cv-01402
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Purnell v. Rudolph and Sletten, Judge Hamilton denied Purnell’s request to change a magistrate judge’s discovery order.
Plaintiff Georgette G. Purnell and defendant Rudolph and Sletten Inc.; the ruling governed the challenged discovery order concerning Purnell’s independent medical examination.
What happened
In Purnell v. Rudolph and Sletten Inc., Georgette G. Purnell asked the district court to review or reconsider a magistrate judge’s order concerning a non-dispositive discovery dispute.
The court reviewed the order under a standard requiring a clear mistake or conflict with the law. It concluded that a mental-health medical examination may be appropriate when a party’s mental health is at issue, and that limiting access to the examination could help preserve its accuracy when the examination may be recorded and later reviewed by Purnell’s preferred doctor.
The court found no clear mistake or legal error in the magistrate judge’s orders and denied Purnell’s motion. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton issued the order.
The detailed version
- Purnell v. Rudolph and Sletten Inc. · No. 4:18-cv-01402
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 23, 2019
Background
Plaintiff Georgette G. Purnell moved under Civil Local Rule 72-2 for review or reconsideration of a non-dispositive pretrial discovery order issued by Magistrate Judge Kandis Westmore on August 19, 2019. The opinion describes the dispute as involving an independent medical examination and limits on access to that examination.
Legal standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a district court reviews a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive pretrial order to determine whether it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court explained that discovery rulings receive great deference and should not be overturned merely because the district court might have weighed the interests differently.
Court’s reasoning
The court found nothing in Judge Westmore’s orders that was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. It stated that an independent medical examination may be appropriate when a party has placed mental health at issue. It also concluded that limiting access to the examination to preserve its accuracy was legitimate, particularly because the examination might be recorded and later reviewed by Purnell’s preferred doctor.
Disposition
The court denied Purnell’s motion for relief from the non-dispositive pretrial order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.