Rule 35.Physical and mental examination of persons.

In a case where someone’s physical condition or mental state is part of what the lawsuit is really about — a car-wreck plaintiff claiming lasting injury, a custody dispute where a parent’s mental fitness is questioned — the other side often needs more than medical records and depositions. It needs its own examiner to take a look. Rule 35 is what makes that possible. It lets a court order a party, or someone under that party’s custody or legal control, such as a minor child, to submit to an examination by a qualified examiner.

Rule 35 stands apart from the other discovery tools in one important way: it is not something a party can demand outright. Every other discovery device in these rules can generally be used by serving a request or notice directly on the other side. Rule 35 requires a motion to the court, a showing of good cause, and notice to the person who will be examined and to every party in the case. The court’s order has to spell out the who, what, when, where, and scope of the examination. In practice, parties often work out the details of an exam by agreement rather than fighting it out in front of a judge, but the rule’s formal path runs through the court.

Once an examination happens, Rule 35 controls what comes next. If the examined party or the person examined asks for it, the party who obtained the exam has to hand over a detailed written report, including test results and conclusions, along with reports from any earlier exams of the same condition. Asking for that report comes at a price, though: doing so waives any privilege the examined party might otherwise have over other examinations of that same condition, whether those exams happened before or will happen later. That trade-off pushes both sides toward a fuller, more even exchange of medical or psychological information relevant to the disputed condition, rather than letting one side cherry-pick favorable results while shielding the rest.