Smith v. Office of the Alameda County Public Defender

Background

Reginald Smith brought claims against the Office of the Alameda County Public Defender and other defendants. The opinion states that Smith was involuntarily committed under the Sexually Violent Predator’s Act between 2007 and 2020 and seeks damages connected to that incarceration, including emotional-distress damages. He seeks at least $1 million per year and identifies psychological injuries including depression, trauma, fear for his life and safety, panic attacks, sleeplessness, and memory loss.

The parties submitted a joint discovery letter about whether Smith should be required to undergo an expert psychological examination. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 allows a court to order a physical or mental examination when a party’s condition is in dispute and there is good cause for the examination.

Arguments and analysis

The defendants argued that an examination was justified because Smith placed specific psychological injuries at issue. They also raised causation questions because Smith testified that his emotional distress resulted partly from broken family relationships, remorse concerning the victims of his qualifying conviction and their parents, and his initial fourteen years of imprisonment before his detention under the Sexually Violent Predator’s Act.

Smith argued that he sought damages only for emotional distress during his detention under that Act and not for continuing emotional distress. He relied on a decision that rejected retrospective expert testimony as speculative under the rule governing expert evidence. The court distinguished that decision because the experts there had examined the plaintiff many years after the period at issue and had acknowledged problems with the reliability of the plaintiff’s statements. The court found those concerns were not present here because Smith’s alleged injuries resulted from incarceration through 2020 and his emotional distress was described as ongoing, even though he was not seeking damages for ongoing distress.

Ruling

The court found that the defendants had established good cause for an independent mental examination. It therefore ordered Smith to undergo the examination. The parties were directed to meet and confer about its timing, scope, and the identity of the examiner. The opinion states that the order disposes of Docket No. 68. It also states that the parties could agree to delay the examination until after summary judgment.

Classification

This is a procedural order because it resolves a discovery dispute and does not decide the underlying claims for damages. The appropriate topics are discovery and civil procedure.