Cline v. Calpine Corporation

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of
 California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EUREKA DIVISION
GEORGE CLINE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CALPINE OPERATING SERVICES
COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 22-cv-07031-RS (RMI)
ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL
INDEPENDENT MEDICAL
EXAMINATION
Re: Dkt. No. 69
Now pending before the court is Defendant’s Motion to Compel an Independent Medical
Examination of Plaintiff (dkt. 69). Plaintiff has opposed the Motion (dkt. 73). Defendant moves to
compel Plaintiff’s attendance at an independent medical examination (“IME”) pursuant to Rule
35, because Plaintiff’s physical condition is in controversy and there is good cause. Defendant
properly specified the parameters of the requested IME in its motion. Plaintiff agrees that an IME
would be appropriate in this case but argues that Defendant did not properly notice the IME before
the close of discovery. Both Defendant and Plaintiff indicate that Defendant discussed scheduling
the IME with Plaintiff prior to the discovery cutoff, but no agreement was reached as Plaintiff
wanted Defendant to agree to continue the trial date in exchange for the IME.
Defendant has shown that good cause exists for the examination as Plaintiff’s physical
condition is central to the case and a review of the medical records is insufficient for its expert
evaluation. Plaintiff has not shown why Defendant’s refusal to stipulate to a continuance of the
trial date should prevent Defendant from conducting an IME of Plaintiff. Defendant attempted to
schedule the examination prior to the discovery deadline and was unable to conduct the exam
because of Plaintiff’s noncooperation—thus, the passing of the discovery cutoff should not
Case 3:22-cv-07031-RS Document 74 Filed 12/18/25 Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
preclude Defendant from performing an IME. For the foregoing reasons, and for good cause
appearing, the court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Compel. Plaintiff shall appear for an
independent medical examination conducted by Defendant’s expert as specified in the Motion on a
mutually agreeable date within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 18, 2025
ROBERT M. ILLMAN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:22-cv-07031-RS Document 74 Filed 12/18/25 Page 2 of 2