Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV00350, Date: 2024-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV00350    Hearing Date: October 4, 2024    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 TO COMPEL MENTAL EXAMINATION

Plaintiff, Jose Ariel Mejia-Morales, a minor by and through the Guardian, Ad Litem, Angelica Morales (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority and Leo Gilbert Howard, (“Defendants”) for injuries arising from a bus v. pedestrian incident. Defendants move to compel Plaintiff to submit to a mental examination by Ari Kalechstein, Ph.D, a mental health professional certified in neuropsychology. (See Declaration of Ari Kalechstein, Ph.D.) Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. 

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”].) Further, a trial court order must “describe in detail who will conduct the examination, where and when it will be conducted, the conditions, scope and nature of the examination, and the diagnostic tests and procedures to be employed. The way to describe these ‘diagnostic tests and procedures’—fully and in detail—is to list them by name.” (Carpenter v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 249, 260.) 

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 contends he suffered the following injuries as a result of the incident: symptoms consistent with traumatic brain injury such as headaches, dizziness, loss of balance and nausea. (See Declaration of Paul O’Reilly, ¶ 4.)  Plaintiff claims that doctors have recommended continuing and follow up treatment to address Plaintiff’s cognitive issues resulting from traumatic brain injury suffered from the accident. (Ibid.)  Defendants thus argue Plaintiff has placed his mental condition in controversy.

The Court finds Plaintiff’s assertions of symptoms consistent with traumatic brain injury such as headaches, dizziness, loss of balance and nausea caused by the incident, as well as his claims that doctors have recommended continuing and follow up treatment to address Plaintiff’s cognitive issues resulting from traumatic brain injury suffered from the accident, place his mental health at issue such that good cause exists for Defendants’ requested examination of Plaintiff. Further, Defendants properly specified 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 proposed order properly specified the diagnostic tests and procedures to be employed. The motion was also accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER 

Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff to submit to the examination by Ari Kalechstein, Ph.D. Plaintiff shall appear for examination within 30 days.

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