Bigger. Better. Bolder. Inman Connect is heading to San Diego. Join thousands of real estate pros, connect with the Inman Community and gain insights from hundreds of leading minds shaping the industry. If you’re ready to grow your business and invest in yourself, this is where you need to be. Go BIG in San Diego!
A federal judge has rejected a request from alleged agent victims of sexual assault to have a support person present while they undergo mental evaluations conducted by a doctor hired by the defendants.
On Tuesday, May 20, U.S. Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg granted a motion to compel from defendants eXp World Holdings, eXp Realty and eXp CEO Glenn Sanford submitted a month ago.
Glenn Sanford
The case concerns the allegations of four female real estate agents who accuse eXp and Sanford of looking the other way as two male eXp agents allegedly lured women to industry and company events with the promise of career advancement, only to then drug and sexually assault them.
The defendants’ motion asked Rosenberg to order the plaintiffs — Fabiola Acevedo, Tami Sims, Christy Lundy and Megan Farrell-Nelson — to submit to a mental examination “without the presence of a third-party,” arguing that such examinations should take place one-one-one so that the forensic psychiatrist and the examinee can establish a rapport, without which the examination would likely be “inaccurate and unreliable.”
The plaintiffs objected to the motion at the end of April, noting that they did not oppose the examinations, but arguing that, if the plaintiffs request it, the plaintiffs should be allowed to “have a neutral support person or female monitor present.” The plaintiffs also asked that, instead of having the examinations take place over the course of eight hours in a single day, they be limited to no more than four hours per day if a plaintiff requests it.
“Plaintiffs are survivors of sexual assault diagnosed with PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder],” attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote.
“Plaintiff Farrell-Nelson and Plaintiff Sims’ treating providers have warned that the Defendants’ proposed examination format — eight continuous hours with a male examiner, alone — could lead to significant psychological harm, including dissociation and retraumatization.”
The doctor treating Farrell-Nelson filed an affidavit “expressing concern that the proposed format mirrors an interrogation, not a clinical evaluation, and may inflict serious emotional damage” and advising that “permitting the presence of a trained support person reduces the risk of retraumatization and promotes a sense of safety and control during the examination.”
Similarly, the therapist treating Sims stated that a support person during Sims’ examination “is critical to safeguarding her mental health and minimizing the psychological harm that could result from undergoing the examination in isolation.”
On May 6, attorneys for eXp objected to the plaintiffs’ requests, asserting that granting the accommodations would interfere with eXp’s “right to conduct a fair examination” and alleging that the plaintiffs objected to their chosen examiner, Dr. Marc Cohen, “simply because he is male.”
“Moreover, Plaintiffs insist on the presence of a third-party while providing no evidence to demonstrate good cause to allow a third-party observer,” attorneys for eXp wrote.
“Instead, Plaintiffs present declarations of their therapists who provide nothing but conjecture and speculations, attempting to impugn Dr. Cohen’s credentials and interfere with the process.”
EXp also said the plaintiffs had not shown “good cause” for why the exams shouldn’t start and end on the same day.
“Instead, Plaintiffs seek to break up the exam process for purely subjective reasons in an attempt to create uncertainty and undermine the overall process,” the company’s filing says.
“This is gamesmanship.”
Judge Rosenberg ultimately sided with the defendants, saying the plaintiffs had not shown good cause for their requests.
“The presence of a third party has the potential to invalidate the examination, undermine a level playing field because the party subject to a [mental] examination could be separately examined by her own expert without a third party’s presence, and inject an adversarial process into the examination,” Rosenberg wrote in her order.
She also noted that her order granting the defendants’ motion to compel requires that the exam “not involve any tests or procedures that are painful, protracted or intrusive” and includes a process to follow if the plaintiff “feels in reasonable good faith that the examination has become abusive in some way.”
“Plaintiffs have not shown why the safeguards in the Order would not assuage their concerns,” Rosenberg added.
Regarding the length of the exams, she said, “If something occurs during testing that makes completion of the testing in one day not practicable, then counsel may confer over a proposed solution at that time.”
The case trial is scheduled for Nov. 17, 2025.
