Thompson v. The Haskell Co. is a federal district court decision that deals with the scope of discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly in relation to reports prepared by non-testifying experts.
The case examines whether a party can prevent the opposing side from obtaining a psychological report prepared shortly after an alleged workplace incident, even when that report was created before litigation formally began. The court’s analysis focuses on Rule 26(b)(4) and the concept of “exceptional circumstances” that may justify disclosure.
Citation and Court
The case was decided as Thompson v. The Haskell Co., Citation No. 93-1327-Civ-J-20, reported at 1994 BL 600 and 65 FEP Cases 1088. The decision was issued by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on June 21, 1994.
Background and Context of Thompson v. The Haskell Co.
The dispute arose out of an employment relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant company. The plaintiff brought claims connected to alleged workplace misconduct and the consequences she claimed to have suffered as a result. During the course of events leading up to the lawsuit, the plaintiff underwent a psychological examination. The report from that examination later became the subject of a discovery dispute.
In Thompson v. The Haskell Co., the central procedural question was not about liability for the alleged workplace conduct itself, but about whether certain documents could be withheld from discovery based on their origin and purpose. Specifically, the plaintiff sought to prevent the defendant from obtaining a psychological report prepared by a non-testifying expert.
Facts of Thompson v. The Haskell Co. Case
In Thompson v. The Haskell Co., the plaintiff alleged that she suffered severe emotional distress as a result of sexual harassment involving a co-worker employed by the defendant. According to the plaintiff, her emotional condition deteriorated significantly, and her employment was terminated when she did not acquiesce to the alleged advances. The plaintiff was fired on June 5, 1992.
Ten days later, on June 15, 1992, the plaintiff was examined by a psychologist, Dr. Laura Lucas. The examination occurred before litigation formally commenced. Dr. Lucas was retained by the plaintiff’s prior counsel to perform a diagnostic review and a personality profile. After meeting with the plaintiff on one occasion, Dr. Lucas prepared a report for the plaintiff’s counsel.
During the litigation, the defendant sought to obtain a copy of Dr. Lucas’s psychological report through discovery. The plaintiff moved for a protective order, arguing that the report was not discoverable. She claimed that Dr. Lucas was a non-testifying expert retained in anticipation of litigation and that Rule 26(b)(4) protected the report from disclosure.
Issue
The legal issue in Thompson v. The Haskell Co. was whether the results of a physical or mental examination of a party, prepared prior to litigation by a non-testifying expert, may nonetheless be discoverable under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Court’s Analysis and Reasoning in Thompson v. The Haskell Co.
In Thompson v. The Haskell Co., the court examined whether the plaintiff had established sufficient grounds to shield the psychological report from discovery. Even assuming that Rule 26(b)(4) applied to Dr. Lucas as a non-testifying expert, the court focused on whether exceptional circumstances existed.
The court noted that the psychological examination took place only ten days after the plaintiff’s termination. Because the plaintiff claimed that her emotional distress resulted from the termination and related workplace events, the timing of the examination was significant. The report potentially reflected the plaintiff’s mental and emotional condition close in time to the alleged misconduct and termination.
The court reasoned that the defendant could not obtain comparable information through other means. Any later examination would not capture the plaintiff’s mental state as it existed shortly after her employment ended. The report therefore had unique evidentiary value. If the report reflected emotional distress connected to the termination, it would be relevant to the plaintiff’s claims. Conversely, if it did not mention termination-related distress, it could suggest that the emotional condition had another cause.
Based on this reasoning, the court concluded that exceptional circumstances justified disclosure. The proximity in time between the termination and the examination made the report particularly important, and the defendant lacked alternative ways to obtain the same information.
Thompson v. The Haskell Co. Judgment
In Thompson v. The Haskell Co., the court held that the psychological report prepared prior to litigation was discoverable due to exceptional circumstances. The plaintiff’s motion for a protective order was denied, and the court ordered the report to be produced.
Conclusion
Thompson v. The Haskell Co. serves as a clear example of how federal courts apply the “exceptional circumstances” standard under Rule 26(b)(4). The court did not create a broad rule allowing unrestricted access to non-testifying expert reports.
Instead, it carefully examined the specific facts, the timing of the psychological examination, and the lack of alternative sources for comparable information. On that basis, the court concluded that fairness in discovery required production of the report, even though it was prepared before litigation and by a non-testifying expert.