Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 20STCV16213, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV16213 Hearing Date: August 11, 2023 Dept: 30
Calendar
No.
Bennett vs. Law Office of Ron Nolan, APC, et. al.,
Case No. 20STCV16213
Tentative Ruling re:
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Mental Examination
Defendants Ronald Nolan and Law Office
of Ronald Nolan (collectively, Defendants) move for an order compelling Plaintiff
Erica Bennett (Plaintiff) to attend a mental examination. The motion is denied.
Where any party seeks to obtain
discovery by a physical examination other than that described in Section
2032.220, or by a mental examination, the party shall obtain leave of the
court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.310, subd. (a).) A mental examination shall be
performed only by a licensed physician, or by a licensed clinical psychologist
who holds a doctoral degree in psychology and has had at least five years of
postgraduate experience in the diagnosis of emotional and mental disorders.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.020, subd. (c)(1).)
A motion for an examination shall
specify the time, place, manner, conditions, scope, and nature of the
examination, as well as the identity and specialty, if any, of the person or
persons who will perform the examination, and shall be accompanied by a meet
and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.310, subd. (b).) The Court
shall grant the motion only for good cause shown. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.320,
subd. (a).)
In this action, Plaintiff alleges that
she suffered emotional distress as a result of Defendants’ sexual harassment,
battery, and other misconduct, and seeks damages for emotional distress. (Comp.
¶¶ 17, 41, 45, 49, 52.) These allegations are sufficient to show that
Plaintiff’s mental state is at issue: “[A] party who chooses to allege
that he has mental and emotional difficulties can hardly deny his mental state
is in controversy.” (Vinson
v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 839.)
Plaintiff has “accused [Defendants] of causing her various mental and
emotional ailments. . . . As a result, the existence and extent of her mental
injuries is indubitably in dispute.” (Id. at 839-40.)
However, Defendants have not
satisfied the procedural requirements for compelling Plaintiff’s mental
examination. Defendants’ motion must specify “the time, place, manner,
conditions, scope, and nature of the examination.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2032.310,
subd. (b).) Defendants have proposed the psychological testing to be
administered to Plaintiff by Dr. Manual
Saint Martin, but fail to specify any other requisite
details, such as the time, place, and scope of the examination.
Additionally, Defendants
have not shown good cause for the requested battery of tests. In moving to
compel a mental examination, “[t]he defendant, aware that the court must name
the diagnostic tests and procedures in the order granting a mental examination,
will identify the potential tests and procedures in its moving papers. The
plaintiff, assisted by counsel and a psychologist or other expert, may consider
whether the proposed tests are inappropriate, irrelevant, or abusive, and
submit evidence and argument to that effect if necessary. If the parties cannot
agree on the specific tests that may be employed, the matter will be resolved
by the court in deciding the defendant's section 2032.310 motion.” (Carpenter
v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 249, 267.) The court’s
determination of whether there is good cause for the particular psychological
tests is to be determined “based on the evidence and arguments submitted by the
parties.” (Id. at 269.)
Here, Plaintiff disputes the
propriety of the eight psychological tests requested by Defendants. While
Defendants’ motion states that all of the listed tests are to be administered, Defendants’
supporting evidence shows that this is a list of merely possible tests: a
letter from Dr. Martin states, “I
will utilize some or all of the following psychological tests: […] Not every
test on this list will be utilized and flexibility is needed in determining
which tests should be employed.” (DiDonato Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. 2 [15].) Defendants
may not compel Plaintiff’s mental examination based on a tentative list of
testing; the motion must specify the “scope[] and nature of the
examination.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2032.310, subd. (b).)
Accordingly, the motion is denied.