GROSS-QUATRONE v. MIZDOL, 2:17-cv-13111

Plaintiff Deborah Gross-Quatrone, a New Jersey Superior Court Judge, sued supervisors for hostile work environment and gender discrimination, seeking damages for severe emotional distress with asserted physical manifestations (nosebleeds, migraines, thyroid problems).
Plaintiff identified 21 treating health-care providers and a treating psychiatrist, Dr. Joseph Acquaviva, who diagnosed major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder and prescribed medication. Plaintiff initially listed Acquaviva as a testifying expert but later said treating physicians would be called as fact witnesses and that no expert would be called while an IME was pending.
Defendants sought a Rule 35 independent psychiatric examination (IME) by Dr. Kenneth J. Weiss; Plaintiff refused to attend voluntarily. Defendants agreed to limit scope, allow audio recording, and include a nurse observer.
Magistrate Judge Wettre granted Defendants’ motion to compel the IME, finding Plaintiff had placed her mental condition "in controversy" and that Defendants had shown "good cause."
The district court applied the clearly erroneous / contrary-to-law standard, reviewed the record, and affirmed Magistrate Judge Wettre’s order compelling the IME, denying Plaintiff’s appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Plaintiff’s mental condition is "in controversy" under Rule 35(a)	Treating physicians will be offered only as fact witnesses; no expert testimony and no claim for ongoing/future psychiatric damages, so mental condition not in controversy	Plaintiff alleges diagnosed psychiatric disorders, unusually severe emotional distress with sustained physical manifestations, and will offer treating-physician testimony about diagnosis and treatment	Court: Yes. Diagnoses, intensity/duration of claimed distress, and treatment place mental condition in controversy; Rule 35 applicable
Whether Defendants established "good cause" for a psychiatric IME	Prior state-ordered neuropsych exam and medical records suffice; other sources available so IME unnecessary	Defendants need their own expert to probe causation/severity; medical records and treating-physician testimony insufficient to fully test claims	Court: Yes. Good cause shown; IME limited in scope/duration, procedural protections ordered (recording, nurse observer), and expert-discovery schedule adjusted
Standard of review and burden on appeal	Magistrate decision should be reversed (appeal)	Magistrate’s fact-intensive discovery rulings reviewed for clear error; appellant bears burden to show error	Court: Applied clearly erroneous/contrary-to-law standard; appellant failed to show error; affirmed

Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104 (1964) (Rule 35 requires courts to determine both "in controversy" and "good cause" with discriminating application)
Kuminka v. Atlantic County N.J., [citation="551 F. App'x 27"] (3d Cir. 2014) (lists factors indicating mental condition is "in controversy" under Rule 35)
Womack v. Stevens Transport, Inc., 205 F.R.D. 445 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (good-cause inquiry balances relevance, need for equal footing, and availability of information from other sources)
Ornelas v. Southern Tire Mart, LLC, 292 F.R.D. 388 (S.D. Tex. 2013) (defendant entitled to retain its own expert even if plaintiff forgoes experts)
Bowen v. Parking Auth. of Camden, 214 F.R.D. 188 (D.N.J. 2003) (discusses limits on Rule 35 when mental condition not placed in controversy)
Bridges v. Eastman Kodak Co., 850 F. Supp. 216 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (treating-physician testimony alone may not necessarily place mental condition in controversy)
O'Quinn v. N.Y. Univ. Med. Ctr., 163 F.R.D. 226 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (treating physician as fact witness does not always trigger Rule 35)