Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 20STCV41392, Date: 2023-10-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV41392    Hearing Date: November 27, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

            On October 28, 2020, Plaintiff Jasmin Kendall (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendants Christopher Dena, Maria Dena, and Does 1 to 50 for injuries resulting from a motor vehicle accident.

            Defendants Christopher Dena and Maria Dena (Defendants) now move to compel Plaintiff’s appearance at a neurological examination. No opposition has been filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

“If any party desires to obtain discovery by a physical examination other than that described in Article 2 (commencing with Section 2032.210), or by a mental examination, the party shall obtain leave of court.  A motion for an examination under subdivision (a) shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination, as well as the identity and the specialty, if any, of the person or persons who will perform the examination. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.”  (Civ. Proc., § 2032.310, subds. (a)-(b).)  “The court shall grant a motion for a physical or mental examination under Section 2032.310 only for good cause shown.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.320, subd. (a); see also Sporich v. Superior Court (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 422, 427 [“the good cause which must be shown should be such that will satisfy an impartial tribunal that the request may be granted without abuse of the inherent rights of the adversary”].)     

A showing of good cause generally requires “that the party produce specific facts justifying discovery and that the inquiry be relevant to the subject matter of the action or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 840.)  And “[a] party who chooses to allege that he has mental and emotional difficulties can hardly deny his mental state is in controversy.”  (Id. at p. 839.)   

MEET AND CONFER

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff alleges pain to her neck and headache. Plaintiff was also evaluated by a neurologist and indicated that she was experiencing fatigue, ringing in ear, dizziness, muscle pain, muscle cramp, neck pain, back pain, headaches and trouble concentrating. (Kelian Decl. ¶ 3.) Defendants seek an examination by Robert Freundlich, M.D., a neurologist. The examination will be of “Plaintiff’s intellectual functioning, language processing skills, perceptual skills, higher motor functions, attention and concentration skills, judgment, reasoning skills, mental flexibility, memory, constructional skills, abstract thinking and conceptualization skills, problem solving skills, behavior regulation, personality alterations, and emotional functioning.” (Notice of Motion at p. 2.)

The Court finds good cause to order a mental examination. Plaintiff has alleged headaches and has been evaluated by a neurologist. In addition, the motion is unopposed.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendants Christopher Dena and Maria Dena’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s independent mental examination is GRANTED.  

The Court orders Plaintiff Jasmin Kendall to appear for examination with Dr. Robert Freundlich within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders, unless Defendants stipulate otherwise.

Defendants shall provide notice of the Court’s order and file a proof of service of such.