Tien aka Angela Tien v. United Airlines, Inc. et al

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
YIHSING TIEN AKA ANGELA TIEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 23-cv-02622-JSW (TSH)
DISCOVERY ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 96
The parties are holding the Plaintiff’s Rule 35 examination hostage to a dispute over what
information has to be produced following the exam. The Court declines to play along.
Rule 35 says what United must produce: “The party who moved for the examination must,
on request, deliver to the requester a copy of the examiner’s report, together with like reports of all
earlier examinations of the same condition.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 35(b)(1). “The examiner’s report
must be in writing and must set out in detail the examiner’s findings, including diagnoses,
conclusions, and the results of any tests.” Id. (b)(2).
So, United should go do that. If Plaintiff thinks United’s Rule 35 report is missing
something that Rule 35 requires, she should meet and confer with United, and if the parties cannot
resolve their dispute, they should file a joint discovery letter brief, attaching the Rule 35 report as
an exhibit. The Court will likely resolve the dispute by reading the report, comparing it to Rule
35, and then deciding whether the report contains the required things. The Court can’t do that
right now because the examination hasn’t happened and no report exists.
United suggests that the examining neuropsychologist, Dr. Judy Ho, will also be
designated as an expert witness. If so, then when expert disclosures are due, United should make
the disclosures required by Rule 26. If Plaintiff thinks they are inadequate, she can meet and
Case 4:23-cv-02622-JSW Document 103 Filed 01/08/26 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
confer with United, and if they are unable to resolve their dispute, they should file a joint
discovery letter brief, attaching the expert disclosures as an exhibit. The Court will likely resolve
the dispute by reviewing the expert disclosures and comparing them to what is required by Rule
26. The Court can’t do that right now because expert disclosures have not taken place yet.
The Court ORDERS the parties to conduct Plaintiff’s Rule 35 examination without further
delay. If there are any disputes about the “time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the
examination, as well as the person or persons who will perform it,” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 35(a)(2)(B),
the parties must promptly file a joint discovery letter brief identifying those disputes. This is not
an invitation for further briefing in advance of the examination about the content of the examiner’s
report, which will be written after the examination takes place.
The Court declines to enter a “highly confidential” protective order at this juncture, as it
doesn’t seem necessary.
This order terminates ECF No. 96.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 8, 2026
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:23-cv-02622-JSW Document 103 Filed 01/08/26 Page 2 of 2