Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 2OSTCV11914, Date: 2022-07-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 2OSTCV11914    Hearing Date: July 27, 2022    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT 3

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant South Pasadena Unified School District

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Jane CS Doe

Defendant South Pasadena Unified School District’s Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery By Mental Examination

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply filed in connection with this motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Jane CS Doe filed this action on March 25, 2020 against Defendants South Pasadena Unified School District (“SPUSD”) and Anthony DeGuzman (“DeGuzman”). Plaintiff alleges that she was sexually abused multiple times by DeGuzman, a volunteer basketball coach at South Pasadena Middle School.

            SPUSD moves for leave to conduct discovery by mental examination.

DISCUSSION

“Any party may obtain discovery … by means of a physical or mental examination of (1) a party to the action, (2) an agent of any party, or (3) a natural person in the custody or under the legal control of a party, in any action in which the mental or physical condition (including the blood group) of that party or other person is in controversy in the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.020, subd. (a).)  Absent stipulation, mental examinations require a court order.  Such order may be made only after notice and hearing, and “for good cause shown.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.320, subd. (a); Carpenter v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 249, 259 [“To protect the plaintiff’s privacy interests from unnecessary intrusion, the mental examination may be ordered only upon a showing of good cause.”].)  A showing of good cause 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.)

SPUSD argues that good cause exists for the mental examination because Plaintiff alleges damages arising out of mental and emotional injuries, and so those injuries are in controversy and directly relevant to her claims. Plaintiff does not dispute that there is good cause for the mental examination but contends that the scope of the examination is burdensome and oppressive.

According to SPUSD, the proposed examination will be performed by a forensic and clinical psychologist who has extensive experience with victims of childhood sexual abuse. The examination will be broken into two half-day sessions, the first of which will consist of the administration of standardized psychological tests lasting approximately 4 hours, and the second will consist of a psychological interview lasting up to 4 hours. SPUSD asserts that the parties attempted to meet and confer regarding the parameters of the examination but were unable to come to an agreement. (Outlaw Decl., ¶¶ 12-13.)

Plaintiff objects that SPUSD has not provided specific information as to the type or nature of examination that will be conducted. The court finds otherwise. SPUSD sets forth the type and nature of the examinations that will be conducted and specifically lists common psychological evaluations that will be used during the examination. (Outlaw Decl., ¶ 7.)

Next, Plaintiff argues that she should not be required to discuss her medical history during the examination because her entire medical history is not at issue in this action. Plaintiff contends that any attempt to evaluate Plaintiff based on her entire medical history would be an improper attempt to perform a second deposition of Plaintiff. However, the court does not find that imposing pre-examination limitations is necessary in light of the information presented by SPUSD regarding the scope of the proposed examination.

Lastly, Plaintiff objects to an in-person examination because of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and requests that the examination be performed within 8 hours on one day. The court does not find that two half-day sessions to be overly burdensome. The court further agrees with SPUSD’s suggested compromise to have the psychologist conduct the interview portion of the examination on the second day virtually. Based on SPUSD’s representations that the testing component of the examination cannot be effectively conducted virtually, the court finds that an in-person examination for the testing component, with the limitation that social distancing and masking be required by all participants .

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court grants SPUSD’s motion for leave to conduct a mental examination of Plaintiff. SPUSD is ordered to serve and file a proposed order that satisfies the specificity required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.320, subdivision (d). (Carpenter v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 249, 260.)

SPUSD is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  July 27, 2022

_____________________________

Colin Leis

Judge of the Superior Court