Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV30990, Date: 2022-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV30990    Hearing Date: September 6, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiff Rebecca Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant KS., L.A., LLC (“Defendant”) for injuries Plaintiff sustained when a gate at Defendant’s property allegedly fell on Plaintiff’s head and vehicle.  The complaint alleges causes of action for negligence and premises liability. 

At this time, Defendant moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to appear for a mental examination.  The motion is unopposed. 

2. Motion to Compel the Defense Mental Examination of the Plaintiff

Except for defense physicals in personal injury cases (in which one examination is permitted as a matter of course) and exams arranged by stipulation, a court order is required for a physical or mental examination. Such order may be made only after notice and hearing, and for “good cause shown.”  (CCP §2032.320(a).) 

The examination will be limited to whatever condition is “in controversy” in the action.  (CCP §2032.020(a).)  This means the examination must be directly related to the specific injury or condition that is the subject of the litigation.  (Roberts v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal.3d 330, 337.)  Often, a party's pleadings put his or her mental or physical condition in controversy ... as when a plaintiff claims continuing mental or physical injury resulting from defendant's acts: “A party who chooses to allege that he has mental and emotional difficulties can hardly deny his mental state is in controversy.”  (See Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 837, wherein the plaintiff claimed ongoing emotional distress from sexual harassment by former employer.)  Discovery responses can also frame the issues regarding the injuries and damages alleged.  Where the plaintiff's injuries are complex, several exams may be necessary by specialists in different fields. There is no limit on the number of physical or mental exams that may be ordered on a showing of good cause.  The good cause requirement checks any potential harassment of the plaintiff.  (See Shapira v. Superior Court (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1249, 1255.) 

Here, Defendant avers that as a result of the incident, Plaintiff is alleging she suffered a traumatic brain injury, and that Plaintiff has sought treatment from a neurologist, who has referred Plaintiff for a neurophysiological evaluation.  Further, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff testified at her deposition that she suffers from anxiety and depression because of her injuries.  Plaintiff does not oppose the motion or dispute putting her mental condition at issue.  The Court thus finds good cause for the mental examination sought. 

            CCP § 2032.320(d) requires the moving party to specify the “diagnostic tests and procedures, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination.”  Defendant indicates the scope of the examination in the moving papers.  The Court notes Defendant also listed the potential tests in the moving papers, which is sufficient to permit Plaintiff to prepare for the examination.  (Mot. at p. 2:3-10.)  Moreover, Plaintiff has not opposed the motion or otherwise objected to scope of the exam or any of the listed tests.  The Court therefore finds Defendant has met its obligations in this regard. 

            Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s mental examination is granted. 

            Plaintiff is ordered to appear for a mental examination with David M. Lechuga, Ph.D, at Orchard Road, Suite 103, Lake Forest, California 92630, on October 27, 2022, at 7:45 a.m. 

Defendant is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 6^th day of September 2022