Davis
Davis v. Zurich American Insurance Co.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 HOWARD DAVIS, Case No. 3:19-cv-04397-WHO
Plaintiff,
ORDER RE: MENTAL
v. EXAMINATIONS
ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO., Re: Dkt. No. 41 Defendant.
12 Zurich American Insurance Co. (“Zurich”), the defendant in this age discrimination and wrongful termination case, seeks to conduct several psychological assessments of plaintiff Howard Davis. Davis agrees that Zurich should be permitted to conduct some mental examination but argues that he should not have to submit to two specific assessments. See Joint Discovery Letter Brief (“Letter”) [Dkt. No. 41]. The two examinations in dispute are the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (“MoCA”) and certain parts of the Cognistat assessment. For the reasons that follow, I agree with Davis that administration of those examinations would be, at this point, improper. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 governs physical and mental examinations during discovery. Under that Rule, courts “may order a…