of any fact that is of consequence to’ the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence”); see generally Duncan, 155 F.R.D. at 25 (noting that to the extent an ongoing injury is claimed, the relevance aspect of “good cause” can be read as merging with Rule 35(a)’s “in controversy” requirement). Wal-Mart has clearly demonstrated that the requested examination would produce relevant information. The medical cause of White’s discomfort is the central focus of the litigation below. The results of an examination would tend to make it either more probable or less probable that the alleged cause of White’s discomfort — battery acid — is in fact the actual cause of the discomfort. See Pearson, 178 F.R.D. at 582; cf. Clement, 493 So.2d at 1354 (<HOLDING>) Thus, Wal-Mart has established relevance. A
holding that in a statutory fee case the results obtained factor was already subsumed in the lodestar and that results multipliers should be awarded only in some cases of exceptional success holding that a plaintiff need only show that the results of a polygraph examination were a factor in the termination of employment and rejecting requirement that results be the sole factor for employees discharge recognizing that blm discussed the modeling results and explained the basis for its decision to discount those results holding that bloodtest results would be irrelevant in action challenging parentage where the results could not be compared to information relating to necessary parties recognizing that enhancement for results obtained may be warranted