Roque v. Valdez
1:24-cv-01233
| D.N.M. | Sep 23, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs allege physical and mental injuries from a car crash caused by Ortega Valdez, driving a World Transportation truck.
- World Transportation moved to compel independent medical examinations (IME) of each Plaintiff, to be performed by Dr. Paul Saiz.
- Rule 35 governs IMEs; the Court must determine in controversy and good cause for examining Plaintiffs.
- Court finds Plaintiffs’ mental and physical injuries are in controversy and good cause exists for IMEs.
- Disputes over (a) location, (b) recording of the IMEs, (c) interpreters, and (d) disclosure of examiner data are addressed; the Court grants IMEs and sets parameters.
- Plaintiffs may bring Spanish interpreters; examinations must occur in Las Cruces at a mutually agreed time; examiner’s report will be provided as Rule 35 requires.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the IMEs are appropriate under Rule 35. | Roque argues no good cause; treating doctors suffice. | Roque/Plato show in controversy and need for reliability of records. | Yes; IMEs granted for both Plaintiffs. |
| Where the IMEs must occur and travel burden. | Travel to Las Cruces over three hours each way is undue burden. | Location reasonable within district; burden not shown with specifics. | IMEs to be conducted in Las Cruces; burden not shown with specific evidence. |
| Whether recording of IMEs should be allowed; and interpreters. | Request for video/audio recording to ensure accuracy; Spanish language issues. | Recording disfavored; interpreters acceptable. | Recording denied; Plaintiffs may bring Spanish interpreters at their expense. |
| What data from the Rule 35 examination must be disclosed. | Request for all data, tests, and forms related to the IME. | Rule 35 requires examiner’s report and related documents; broader requests denied. | Defendant must provide Rule 35-required materials; broader requests denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104 (Supreme Court 1964) (establishes good cause and in-controversy requirements for Rule 35)
- Ornelas v. S. Tire Mart, LLC, 292 F.R.D. 388 (S.D. Tex. 2013) (discusses use and limitations of Rule 35 examinations)