Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 20STCV43293, Date: 2023-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV43293    Hearing Date: August 22, 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  

MOTION 

Plaintiff Gad Kakanyisa (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Christopher Schwarzenegger, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Oak Production, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) based on injuries allegedly sustained by Plaintiff in a three-car automobile accident on October 30, 2020. 

Defendant Oak Production, Inc. (“Oak”) moves to compel Plaintiff to submit to a mental examination (“IME”) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2032.310 and 2032.320 in the following particulars: mental examination of Plaintiff, Gad Kakanyisa to be conducted on a mutually agreeable date within one month by Dr. Kyle Boone, PhD, at 24564 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 208, Torrance, California 90505.  No opposition has been filed.

ANALYSIS 

“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.)   

Here, Plaintiff claims, through his responses to written discovery and produced medical records, behavioral and cognitive deficits as a result of the subject accident, including difficulties with attention, lapses of memory, loss of executive functioning, difficulties problem-solving, pain, loss of balance, poor processing and comprehension, and impairments with visual processing.  (Declaration of Frances Brower, ¶¶ 4-8; Ex. B-D.)  Plaintiff has also stated in discovery responses that he was diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury through an occipital nerve block by Dr. Johnathan Eskenazi.  (Brower Decl., ¶ 6; Ex. D.)  Defendant Oak thus argues Plaintiff has placed his mental condition in controversy, and Defendant Oak is entitled to examine Plaintiff’s mental condition.  (Motion pp. 8-10.)  The neuropsychological IME will be conducted by Dr. Kyle Boone, PhD on a mutually agreeable date within one month at 24564 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 208, Torrance, California 90505.  It will take approximately 6-8 hours to complete, and will involve a history taking and observation of Plaintiffs as well as the administration to Plaintiff of standard psychological and neuropsychological tests.  

The Court finds Plaintiff’s claims of traumatic brain injury, difficulties with attention, lapses of memory, loss of executive functioning, difficulties problem-solving, pain, loss of balance, poor processing and comprehension, and impairments with visual processing due to his injuries sustained in the subject incident, place his mental health at issue such that good cause exists for Defendant Oak’s requested examination of Plaintiff.  Further, the Court finds the Declaration of Marcoly demonstrates a reasonable and good faith attempt to informally resolve the issue presented by the instant motion. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER 

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant Oaks’s motion to compel Plaintiff to submit to the neurological examination by Dr. Kyle Boone, PhD on a mutually agreeable date within 30 days at 24564 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 208, Torrance, California 90505. 

Defendant shall provide notice of this ruling and file a proof of service of such.