The State Bar of California - February 2009 Question 2 (Civil Procedure) lyrics

Copyco, Inc. ("Copyco"), a maker of copy machines, was incorporated in State A. Most of Copyco's employees work in State B at its sole manufacturing plant, which is located in the southern federal judicial district of State B. Copyco also has a distribution center in the northern federal judicial district of State B. Sally is a citizen of State B. Sally was using a Copyco copy machine at Blinko, a copy center within the northern federal judicial district of State B, when the machine started to jam. When Sally tried to clear the jam, she severely injured her hand. She underwent several surgeries at a nearby hospital. Her physician believes she may never recover the full use of her hand. Sally filed a lawsuit against Copyco as the sole defendant in the State B northern district federal court. Her complaint alleges that Copyco was negligent and that she has suffered physical injury, and also seeks damages of $100,000, exclusive of costs and interest. The federal court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear Sally's lawsuit on the basis of diversity of citizenship. Copyco, however, moved for a change of venue to the southern federal judicial district of State B. The court denied Copyco's motion. Sally wishes to obtain from Blinko a copy of the maintenance records for the copy machine that caused her injuries. Questioning the extent of the injuries Sally alleged, Copyco wishes the court to compel Sally to appear for an examination by both a physician and a psychologist of Copyco's own choosing. 1. Was the federal court correct to deny Copyco's motion for change of venue? Discuss. 2. (a) Is Sally entitled to a copy of the maintenance records? Discuss. (b) If so, how must she proceed to obtain them? Discuss. 3. (a) Is Copyco entitled to an order to compel Sally to appear for an examination by a physician and an examination by a psychologist chosen by Copyco? Discuss. (b) If so, how must it proceed to obtain such an order? Discuss.