Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Favale v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport

United States District Court for the District of Connecticut · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDiscoveryRule 35 mental examinationProtective ordersRule 35Rule 26(c)mental examinationpsychiatric examination

Facts

Favale worked as an administrative assistant at Saint Joseph's School and alleged that the school's principal sexually harassed her and that the Diocese retaliated against and humiliated her, causing severe emotional distress. She sued for, among other things, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and alleged that her treating therapist and psychologist diagnosed her with post-traumatic stress disorder, general anxiety disorder, and depression. The Diocese sought a Rule 35 psychiatric examination by Dr. Walter Borden. Favale did not object to being examined by Dr. Borden but sought limits on how the examination would be conducted and what testing could be used.

Issue

Whether the Diocese was entitled under Rule 35 to compel an independent psychiatric examination of Favale, and if so, whether the court should restrict that examination by permitting a third-party observer or tape recording, prohibiting the MBMD test, or requiring use of previously administered MMPI raw data instead of a new MMPI. The case also asked what showing is necessary under Rule 26(c) to justify such protective conditions.

Rule

Under Rule 35, a court may order a mental examination only when the party's mental condition is in controversy and the movant shows good cause for the particular examination. Requests to alter the usual one-on-one character of a Rule 35 examination through an observer or recording are evaluated under Rule 26(c), and the party seeking those protections must show good cause with specific facts or special circumstances; broad, unsupported allegations are insufficient. Discovery techniques used in the examination are permissible if reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence, unless the resisting party shows they are irrelevant, harmful, burdensome, unorthodox, or otherwise improper.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal employment suit filed in Hartford, Lena Ortiz alleges that her supervisor's conduct caused her severe emotional distress. She pleads intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and plans to call her treating psychologist, who diagnosed her with PTSD, panic disorder, and depression.

If the employer moves under Rule 35 for an independent psychiatric examination, how should the court most likely rule?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, a Rule 35 mental examination may be ordered when the party's mental condition is in controversy and the movant shows good cause. A plaintiff who alleges severe emotional distress, pleads emotional-distress tort claims, and intends to present diagnoses from treating providers has placed her mental condition in controversy. The defendant has good cause to obtain its own evaluation to assess that condition. (Derived from Favale v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport (n.d.).)