Sherman v. The Regents of University of California

Background

Benjamin Sherman and Zayd Hammoudeh sued The Regents of University of California over claims involving alleged sexual-harassment retaliation, race or national-origin harassment, harassment based on race, religion, or national origin, intentional discrimination, and discrimination in education. The claims arose from the plaintiffs’ interactions with Professor Dimitris Achlioptas at the University of California Santa Cruz, where both plaintiffs were students. The plaintiffs sought non-economic damages for alleged emotional and physical distress, including humiliation, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and medical expenses.

The parties asked the court to resolve two discovery disputes: whether Hammoudeh had to produce medical records from the University of Oregon Health Center, which plaintiffs’ counsel possessed after obtaining them through a subpoena, and what the scope of The Regents’ independent mental examinations of both plaintiffs should be.

Medical Records

Hammoudeh objected to producing records concerning his physical health, arguing that they were not relevant to his emotional-distress claims. The court noted, however, that the complaint alleged both emotional and physical distress and sought damages for those injuries. Because the parties had not provided enough information about the physical injuries or symptoms Hammoudeh claimed were related to his emotional distress, the court limited the required production to medical records concerning the same types of symptoms or conditions that he claimed were caused by The Regents’ conduct.

The court further stated that if Hammoudeh claimed emotional distress caused physical pain, he had to produce records concerning conditions or symptoms that might reasonably be expected to produce the same physical pain.

Independent Mental Examinations

The parties agreed that the plaintiffs’ mental conditions were in controversy and that good cause existed for independent mental examinations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35. They disagreed about the examinations’ scope and whether the plaintiffs should be barred from discussing their examinations with each other before both examinations were completed.

The court held that the examinations had to match the plaintiffs’ claims concerning mental-health injury and emotional distress. Assuming the plaintiffs continued to claim mental or emotional symptoms that produced physical symptoms, the examinations could cover symptoms placed in issue. Unless the parties agreed to another period, the examinations could cover the period from each plaintiff’s eighteenth birthday through the present.

Based on the information provided, the court expected the examinations to include psychological or psychiatric complaints and diagnoses; mental-health treatment, medications, therapy, and hospitalizations; physical medical history to the extent related to symptoms for which the plaintiffs sought non-economic damages; use of controlled substances other than medications when those substances might reasonably be expected to produce claimed symptoms; episodes of serious depression or extreme stress; and the MMPI-2 and MCMI-IV psychological tests.

The court found that The Regents had not adequately justified examinations covering the plaintiffs’ military, legal, relationship and marital, developmental, habit, educational, or vocational histories. The court also declined to order the plaintiffs not to communicate about their examinations. The Regents’ examining expert could ask the plaintiff examined second whether he had communicated with the first plaintiff about the examination and could assess any effect on the results. If appropriate, the court would consider whether that communication should be disclosed to the factfinder.

Order

The court required Hammoudeh to produce medical records falling within the court’s guidance by January 10, 2022. It ordered the independent mental examinations to proceed on the dates stated in the parties’ discovery submission unless the parties agreed otherwise. Judge Virginia K. Demarchi issued the order as a United States magistrate judge.