Nev. R. Civ. P. 35
Advisory Committee Note - 2019 Amendment Subsection (a). Rule 35(a) expressly addresses audio recording and attendance by an observer at court-ordered physical and mental examinations. A court may for good cause shown direct that an examination be audio recorded. A generalized fear that the examiner might distort or inaccurately report what occurs at the examination is not sufficient to establish good cause to audio record the examination. In addition, a party whose examination is ordered may have an observer present, typically a family member or trusted companion, provided the party identifies the observer and his or her relationship to the party in time for that information to be included in the order for the examination. Psychological and neuropsychological examinations raise subtler questions of influence and confidential and proprietary testing materials that make it appropriate to condition the attendance of an observer on court permission, to be granted for good cause shown. In either event, the observer should not be the attorney or employed by the attorney for the party against whom the request for examination is made, and the observer may not disrupt or participate in the examination. A party requesting an audio recording or an observer should request such a condition when making or opposing a motion for an examination or at a hearing on the motion.
Subsection (b). A Rule 35(b) report should contain opinions concerning the physical or mental condition in controversy for which the examiner is qualified to render an opinion. The disclosure deadlines contemplate that the report will be provided by the initial expert disclosure deadline, assuming that deadline is within 30 days of the examination. There may be rare circumstances that would justify a rebuttal Rule 35 examination. Any report prepared from a rebuttal examination must be timely disclosed by the rebuttal expert disclosure deadline or within 30 days of the examination, whichever occurs first. If the expert disclosure deadlines have passed, a party seeking a Rule 35 examination must move to reopen the applicable expert disclosure deadlines unless otherwise stipulated in writing by the parties. To reopen an expert disclosure deadline, the moving party must demonstrate excusable neglect or changed circumstances, such as where there has been an unanticipated change in a party's physical or mental condition.
Drafter's Note
2004 Amendment
Subdivision (a) is amended to conform to the federal rule, as amended in 1991, which permits court ordered or stipulated examinations by anyone suitably licensed or certified. The amendments to subdivision (b) are technical.