Nelsen v. Mayo Clinic

Background

The court considered three motions filed by Andrea Nelsen: a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) to amend her claims to add punitive damages; a motion to quash, meaning cancel, Mayo Clinic’s subpoena for Lawrence Nelsen or alternatively issue a protective order; and a motion for a protective order concerning an examination under Rule 35. The order also addressed Mayo Clinic’s request to reopen Nelsen’s deposition and its request for fees and costs.

Rulings on Amendment and Deposition

Nelsen’s motion to amend to add punitive damages was granted in part and denied in part. The court denied the motion as to Nelsen’s promissory-estoppel claim. It reasoned that promissory estoppel sounds in contract and that Nelsen had not alleged an independent tort, which the cited Minnesota authorities identified as a basis for recovering extra-contractual damages in this context. The court granted the motion as to all of Nelsen’s other eligible claims.

The court denied Mayo Clinic’s request to reopen Nelsen’s deposition.

Lawrence Nelsen Subpoena

Nelsen’s motion to quash Lawrence Nelsen’s subpoena or alternatively obtain a protective order was granted. Although Nelsen had identified Lawrence Nelsen in her initial disclosures as someone likely to have discoverable information about communications between him and Nelsen regarding Mayo, the subpoena identified deposition topics beyond that scope. The court also found that Mayo Clinic could obtain the information through other, less intrusive means and that the requested deposition was not proportional to the needs of the case.

Rule 35 Examination

Nelsen’s motion for a protective order concerning the Rule 35 examination was granted in part and denied in part.

The court denied, as written, Nelsen’s request to limit the examination to information reasonably relevant to whether she suffered emotional damages from Mayo Clinic’s actions. Instead, the court limited the examination to information that might reasonably relate to causation and the existence and extent of her emotional distress. The court stated that possible pre-existing causes of her current or past emotional distress were relevant to determining the extent of her alleged damages.

The court granted in part and denied in part Nelsen’s request to exclude inquiries or testing about her personality, fitness to practice medicine, or undiagnosed mental disorders. The examination could not directly ask whether she was fit to practice medicine unless that issue became relevant to evaluating her current emotional state. The court otherwise left the scope of inquiries and testing to the examiner’s discretion, limited to what was necessary to evaluate Nelsen’s emotional distress and its causation.

The court granted Nelsen’s requests that the examination occur at an agreed time and place in Minneapolis and be conducted by a suitably licensed or certified examiner disclosed by Mayo Clinic at least 30 days beforehand. The court found that Dr. Barbara Long was suitably licensed and that Mayo Clinic had satisfied the notice requirement.

The court denied Nelsen’s request to audio- or video-record the examination. It also denied her request to require that the examination occur in a single day lasting no more than three hours. Instead, the court ordered that the examination could last up to ten total hours, including reasonable breaks, and could be divided over two days.

The court granted Nelsen’s request that the examiner’s report be provided only to Nelsen and the parties’ counsel and treated as confidential, attorneys’-eyes-only material until further court order or a written agreement by the parties.

Fees and Costs

The court denied Mayo Clinic’s request for fees and costs. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson.