## Facts

- Hertha Sibbach sued Wilson & Co. in federal court for negligence arising out of an automobile accident in which she claimed she was injured.
- Because Sibbach placed her physical condition in dispute, Wilson & Co. moved for an order requiring Sibbach to submit to a physical examination under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35.
- The district court granted the motion and ordered Sibbach to appear for the examination.
- Sibbach refused to comply, arguing that compelling a physical examination exceeded the Supreme Court’s rulemaking power under the Rules Enabling Act because it affected substantive rights.
- The district court held Sibbach in contempt under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 for disobeying the examination order and imposed coercive sanctions designed to compel compliance.
- The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
- Sibbach petitioned for Supreme Court review, again contending that Rules 35 and 37 were invalid under the Rules Enabling Act.

## Issues

1. Whether Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 35 (compulsory physical examination) and 37 (sanctions for disobeying discovery orders) are within the Rules Enabling Act’s authorization to promulgate rules of “practice and procedure” that do not abridge, enlarge, or modify substantive rights.
2. Whether ordering a party to submit to a physical examination under Rule 35 is a procedural device for gathering evidence or an impermissible alteration of substantive rights.
3. Whether Rule 37 permits contempt sanctions to enforce a Rule 35 physical-examination order.

## Decision

- The Court held that Rules 35 and 37 are valid under the Rules Enabling Act because they regulate the conduct of litigation (the process of adjudication) rather than the parties’ substantive rights.
- The Court held that a compulsory physical examination under Rule 35 is a procedural method of obtaining evidence when a party’s physical condition is in controversy and “good cause” is shown.
- The Court upheld the contempt order as an available enforcement mechanism under Rule 37 for disobedience of the examination order.
- The judgment was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Rules Enabling Act, Federal Rules are valid if they regulate “practice and procedure” and do not abridge, enlarge, or modify substantive rights.
- A rule is procedural, for Enabling Act purposes, when it governs the judicial process for determining rights and liabilities—such as evidence-gathering and the management of litigation—even if compliance burdens a litigant.
- When a party affirmatively puts a physical condition at issue in a civil action, Rule 35 permits the court, on a showing of good cause, to order an examination to obtain relevant proof about that condition.
- Federal courts may enforce lawful discovery orders through the sanctions authorized by the Civil Rules, including contempt where the Rules allow it.

## Conclusion

Sibbach held that Rule 35’s compulsory physical examination and Rule 37’s enforcement provisions fall within the Supreme Court’s procedural rulemaking authority under the Rules Enabling Act, and the Court affirmed the contempt sanction imposed for refusing to obey the Rule 35 examination order.


Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., 312 U.S. 1, 61 S.Ct. 422 (1941)