Areosmith frontman Steven Tyler asked for a psychological examination of a woman accusing him having an illicit relationship with her when she was 16-years-old and he was 25, while waiting for a judge to rule on his bid to dismiss the remaining claims in her lawsuit against him.
The 77-year-old musician’s attorneys maintain that because the plaintiff has made her mental health an issue in the case, an evaluation of her by one psychiatrist and one psychologist they have chosen is warranted, according to court papers filed Monday with Inglewood Superior Court Judge Tamara Hall in advance of an Oct. 27 hearing.
“Without an examination assessing plaintiff’s mental condition and contributing sources thereto, defendant cannot adequately and completely prepare a defense to plaintiff’s claims of emotional distress,” Tyler’s lawyers wrote.
Despite suggesting for months that the plaintiff would undergo the evaluation, she “has now changed course in a bait-and-switch that has not only forced (Tyler) to seek relief from this court, but to do so mere weeks ahead of the discovery cutoff,” the singer’s attorneys said.
Tyler’s attorneys said they want their experts to be able to ask the plaintiff questions about her sexual history beyond her alleged experiences with the celebrity. They contend that information is relevant to her claims of sexual battery, sexual assault and intentional infliction of emotion distress.
“If the exam simply ignores earlier childhood instances of sexual abuse that plaintiff has identified in the course of discovery, or sexually abusive situations or relationships that may have occurred after her relationship with Tyler ended, we run the risk of misleading the trier of fact,” Dr. James Armontrout, a psychiatrist, said in a sworn statement supporting Tyler’s request.
The psychologist selected by Tyler’s lawyers to potentially evaluate the plaintiff is Howard J. Friedman.
Some of the plaintiff’s claims of infliction of emotional distress had previously been dismissed in what’s known as an anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) motion because they were related to statements made in Tyler’s published memoirs. The state’s anti-SLAPP law is intended to prevent people from using courts, and potential threats of a lawsuit, to intimidate those who are exercising their First Amendment rights.
In their motion to dismiss what remains of the plaintiff’s case, the singer’s attorneys maintain that only one of her claims have a California connection, while the others are connected to alleged conduct that occurred in Massachusetts, Oregon and Washington, where her causes of action would be time-barred.