Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 21STCV20775, Date: 2025-03-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV20775    Hearing Date: March 4, 2025    Dept: 76

            Plaintiff alleges that she was harassed and discriminated against on account of her pregnancy and was ultimately terminated.

Defendant Mother’s Nutritional Center, Inc. move to compel Plaintiff’s mental examination.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Mother’s Nutritional Center, Inc.’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s mental examination is DENIED without prejudice.

            Defendant’s motion for issue and evidentiary sanctions in the alternative is DENIED, as Defendant is the party who failed to meet its burden, and Plaintiff has not disobeyed a discovery order.

ANALYSIS

Motion To Compel Independent Mental Examination

Defendant Mother’s Nutritional Center, Inc. move to compel Plaintiff’s mental examination.

            Civ. Proc. Code, § 2032.020(a) provides in relevant part:

(a) Any party may obtain discovery, subject to the restrictions set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2019.010), by means of a . . . mental examination of (1) a party to the action, . . . in any action in which the mental . . . condition . . . of that party . . .  is in controversy in the action.

     (Civ. Proc. Code § 2032.020(a).)

            Civ. Proc. Code, § 2032.310 provides:

(a) If any party desires to obtain discovery by . . . a mental examination, the party shall obtain leave of court.

(b) 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.

(c) Notice of the motion shall be served on the person to be examined and on all parties who have appeared in the action.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.310.)

            Civ. Proc. Code, § 2032.320 provides in pertinent part:

(a)  The court shall grant a motion for a physical or mental examination under Section 2032.310 only for good cause shown.

. . .

(d)  An order granting a physical or mental examination shall specify the person or persons who may perform the examination, as well as the time, place, manner, diagnostic tests and procedures, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination.

. . .

(Civ. Proc. Code, § 2032.320(a) & (d).)

Civ. Proc. Code, § 2032.020(c)(1) provides:

“A mental examination conducted under this chapter 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(c)(1)[bold emphasis added].) 

           A plaintiff’s mental condition is only “in controversy” in the action for purposes of an IME if the plaintiff claims that emotional distress is continuing/ongoing, not if it is only in the past. (Doyle v. Superior Court (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1878, 1883-87.) Here, Plaintiff has chosen to place hermental condition in controversy in this action. (Civ. Proc. Code, § 2032.020(a).)

            Here, the notice of motion is deficient and even the memorandum of points and authorities does not set forth the information required by Civ. Proc. Code, § 2032.310(b). The fact that all information is only set forth in the proposed order is insufficient, as such information is required to be set forth in the “motion.” (Id.)

            Further, it is unclear whether Dr. Judy Ho Gavazza meets the qualifications of having at least five years of postgraduate experience in the “diagnosis of emotional and mental disorders,” as required by Civ. Proc. Code, § 2032.020(c)(1), as her CV is couched in obfuscating language. It would have been a simple matter to have her submit a declaration attesting to the fact that she met this criteria.

            Similarly, the fact that the tests to be performed and the scope thereof is only set forth in the proposed order, does not meet the requirement that such information be provided in the “motion.” (Civ. Proc. Code, § 2032.310(b).)

            Moreover, Defendant has not demonstrated good cause for inquiry into the following subjects presented in the proposed order: developmental history, education, employment, social and marital history, legal history (such as disability claims, if any), general medical history, prior psychiatric history, substance use, and family history. In this regard, there is no explanation as to why a mental examination outside the scope of Plaintiff’s six-month period of employment (December 6, 2018 to June 6, 2019—Complaint, ¶ 9) is relevant, where Plaintiff claims her emotional distress began after she notified her supervisor of her pregnancy. The only obvious condition which is relevant to Plaintiff’s claim for emotional distress is that related to her term of pregnancy and any post-partum depression. Defendant could have, but did not, submit a declaration of Dr. Ho explaining such.

            As such, the motion compel a mental examination is DENIED without prejudice.

            Defendant’s motion for issue and evidentiary sanctions in the alternative is DENIED, as Defendant is the party who failed to meet its burden, and Plaintiff has not disobeyed a discovery order.