Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 19STCV24659, Date: 2023-02-06 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org.  Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line.  In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.     If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
                          
            Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.   
 
            If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.  

Case Number: 19STCV24659    Hearing Date: February 6, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendants Mario Garcia Ceja and Bernardo Arreguin Ceja’s Motion for Leave to Conduct IMEs

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On July 16, 2019, Plaintiffs Maria Mora Rico (“Maria”) and Juan Rico (“Rico”) filed this action against Defendants Mario Garcia Ceja (“Mario”) and Bernardo Arreguin Ceja (“Bernardo”) for motor vehicle negligence, general negligence and loss of consortium. Plaintiff later amended the complaint to include Defendant Guaranty Chevrolet Motors, Inc. (“GMC”).

On November 1, 2019, Mario filed an answer. On November 27, 2019, Bernardo filed an answer. On August 15, 2022, GMC filed an answer.

On December 22, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the FAC.

On October 12, 2022, Mario and Bernardo (“Moving Defendants”) filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiff Maria Mora Rico’s IME to be heard on February 6, 2023.

Trial is currently set for June 14, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Moving Defendants requests the Court compel Maria to appear for four medical exams with the following individuals:

Neurologist Kenneth L. Nudleman, M.D. at 801 North Tustin Ave., Ste. 304, Santa Ana, CA 92705.

Neuropsychologist Enrique Lopez, M.D., at 9001 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 204, Beverly Hills, CA 90211.

Dentist Mark D. Exler, D.D.S. at 1631Blvd., #530, Encino, CA 91436.

Orthopedic Surgeon Michael J. Einbund, M.D., at 1125 East Seventeenth St., Ste. E-218, Santa Ana, CA 92705.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure §2032.310 (a) requires a party to obtain leave of court if it wishes to obtain discovery by an additional physical exam or any mental exam. Subdivision (b) provides that a motion 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.” Such a motion may only be granted on good cause shown.  (CCP §2032.320(a).)

DISCUSSION

Maria alleges that, as a result of the subject incident, she has suffered various injuries including: TBIs, neck injuries, back injuries, face injuries, glass lacerations, shoulder pain and derangement, foot injuries, contusions of various body parts, fractured teeth, edema of lower extremities, internal derangement, anxiety, fainting, insomnia, fatigue, headaches and muscle spasms. Maria has put potential injuries and symptoms at issue that the proposed doctors could evaluate, meaning there is good cause for such an IME.

The Court finds Defendant has provided the time, place, manner, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination, as well as the identity and specialty of the person to perform the examination for the exam with Lopez and Exler. However, both Nudleman and Einbund’s exams do not provide proper information as to the manner and conditions. Both note there will be tests as required or deemed necessary. This is insufficient information as to the tests and exams to be performed. Nudleman and Einbund’s IMEs both must provide additional information on the tests to be potentially performed. The Court grants the motion as to Lopez and Exler, but denies the motion as to Nudleman and Einbund.

CONCLUSION

Defendants Mario Garcia Ceja and Bernardo Arreguin Ceja’s Motion for Leave to Conduct IMEs is GRANTED, in part. Plaintiff is ordered to appear for an independent medical exam with Neuropsychologist Enrique Lopez, M.D., at 9001 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 204, Beverly Hills, CA 90211 within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.

Plaintiff is ordered to appear for an independent medical exam with Dentist Mark D. Exler, D.D.S. at 1631Blvd., #530, Encino, CA 91436 within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.

The motion is DENIED as to Nudleman and Einbund.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.