Robinson v. De Niro

Background

The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 for an independent mental examination of Graham Chase Robinson by their psychiatric expert, Dr. Kimberly S. Resnick. Robinson’s complaint seeks $12 million in damages for alleged humiliation, embarrassment, reputational harm, emotional and physical distress, mental anguish, and other non-economic damages. Robinson also alleged that she continued to suffer emotional harm.

Robinson had identified medical doctors as potential witnesses concerning her emotional harm and disclosed Dr. Robert Lloyd Goldstein as an expert. Goldstein examined Robinson and later provided a 38-page report addressing her mental state and its causes. Dr. Resnick stated that she needed to examine Robinson to form her own expert opinion. She proposed a video examination lasting no longer than eight hours and described an interview-based psychiatric examination addressing Robinson’s past and present mental health, prognosis, and the alleged discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.

The parties’ arguments

The defendants argued that Robinson’s mental condition was “in controversy” because she claimed mental and emotional injuries. Robinson did not dispute that point, but argued that the motion was untimely, that the defendants had not shown good cause, and that Dr. Resnick was not sufficiently experienced. Robinson also argued that the examination’s scope was unclear, that it should be limited to two hours, and that it should not be recorded.

Court’s reasoning

Rule 35 permits a court to order a mental examination when a party’s mental condition is in controversy and the requesting party shows good cause. The court explained that good cause requires more than conclusory allegations or ordinary relevance, but that a plaintiff’s claim that a defendant caused mental injury or continuing mental illness generally places the plaintiff’s mental condition in controversy.

Judge Parker found good cause here because Robinson alleged extensive and continuing emotional injuries, and Dr. Resnick stated that an examination was necessary to form an expert opinion. The court declined to question the expert’s stated methodology and rejected Robinson’s argument that reviewing existing medical records was enough.

The court also found that the defendants had not unreasonably delayed seeking the examination. Robinson disclosed her experts on January 21, 2022, and served Dr. Goldstein’s report on February 18, 2022. The defendants then sought examination dates, but Robinson did not provide dates. Expert discovery was not scheduled to end until April 30, 2022.

Judge Parker found Dr. Resnick qualified based on her curriculum vitae and said any challenge under the evidence rule governing expert reliability was premature. The court also found the proposed examination sufficiently defined. It could include a standard psychiatric examination, personal and medical history, substance-use and trauma history, information about the alleged workplace conduct, current psychiatric symptoms, and effects on important areas of functioning.

The court denied Robinson’s request to limit the examination to two hours. It relied on her repeated allegations of emotional distress and Dr. Resnick’s estimate that up to eight hours might be needed. The court did not impose a time limit based solely on Robinson’s having already participated in two depositions.

The court treated videotaping differently. It explained that recording may interfere with the direct conversation between a patient and psychologist and undermine the evaluation. Because the defendants had not shown good cause or special circumstances justifying a recording device, the court prohibited videotaping.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ request to conduct a Rule 35 independent medical examination, subject to the modification that the examination not be videotaped. The court also denied Robinson’s request to limit the examination to two hours.