Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 23STCO00795, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCO00795    Hearing Date: May 11, 2023    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

MOVING PARTY:              Petitioner California Casualty Indemnity Exchange.

OPPOSITION:                      [None; Petitioner filed Notice of Non-Opposition] 

Background

On March 10, 2023, Petitioner California Casualty Indemnity Exchange brought this action for the purpose of filing a motion to compel a mental examination of Respondent Cyr David Martin in an Underinsured Motorist Arbitration claim pursuant to the dictations of subdivision (f) of Section 11580.2 of the Insurance Code.

On April 17, 2023, Petitioner filed its motion to compel mental examination of Respondent Martin on the ground that good cause exists for such examination where Martin is asserting a severe emotional distress claim arising from an automobile collision that forms the basis of a claim for underinsured motorist benefits pursuant to the terms of his automobile liability policy through Petitioner.

On April 28, 2023, Respondent Martin filed a notice of non-opposition to the mental examination motion.

Petitioner’s motion is now before the Court.

Motion to Compel Mental Examination

Legal Standard

Any party can make a motion for a physical or mental examination. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.310, subd. (a); see, e.g., Doyle v. Superior Court (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1878, 1880-1881 [plaintiff in defamation case made motion for mental examination of defendant cross-complainant because defendant claimed mental anguish from plaintiff’s sexual harassment].) A mental examination must be sought through a motion rather than, for example, simply through a demand. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.310, subd. (a); Carpenter v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 249, 259.)

The points and authorities supporting the motion must:

(1) Identify the examinee and show that the person is a party to the action, an agent of any party, or a natural person in the custody or under the legal control of a party (see Code Civ., Proc., § 2032.020, subd. (a));

(2) Show how the examinee’s physical or mental condition has been placed in controversy in the case (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.020, subd. (a));

(3) Establish good cause for the physical or mental examination, where good cause involves providing specific facts justifying discovery and show that the inquiry is relevant to the subject matter of the case or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.320, subd. (a); Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 840, fn. 6 [general rule and defining good cause]; see Code Civ. Proc., 2032.320, subd. (e)(1) [must show good cause to conduct examination more than 75 miles from the examinee’s residence]; Carpenter v. Superior Court, supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at p. 259 [good cause required for a mental examination]); Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) [good-cause requirement serves as a barrier to excessive and unwarranted intrusions]);

(4) Provide the details for the examination, including the time, place, and manner of examination, condition, scope, and nature thereof, and examiner (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.310, subd. (b)); and

(5) Where the motion requests a place for the examination that is more than 75 miles from the examinee’s residence, state the examining party’s willingness to pay for the examinee’s reasonable travel expenses and costs (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.320, subd. (e)(2)).

The motion need not include a separate statement. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(6).)

Analysis

The motion by Petitioner identifies Respondent Martin as the party examinee at issue. (Mot., p. 1.) The motion identifies that Respondent Martin has placed his mental state at issue by claiming severe emotional distress arising from an automobile collision supporting a claim by Martin relating to underinsured motorist benefits. (Mot., pp. 1-2.) The motion establishes good cause for a mental examination through the same facts. (Mot., pp. 1-2.) The motion also provides the details for the examination, including the time, place, and manner of examination, condition, scope, and nature thereof, and examiner. (Mot., pp. 2-3.) Though the motion does not include a statement regarding willingness to pay Respondent Martin reasonable expenses and costs for travel beyond 75 miles of his residence, the Court finds that Martin’s non-opposition to the mental examination moots this question. (See Mot., Non-Opp’n generally.)

The motion by Petitioner is therefore GRANTED. 

Conclusion

Respondent California Casualty Indemnity Exchange’s Motion to Compel Mental Examination is GRANTED because it complies with the relevant requirements set forth in Code of Civil Procedure sections 2032.020, 2032.310, and 2032.320.