Judge: Glenn R. Salter, Case: 21-1221051, Date: 2022-11-03 Tentative Ruling

The motion of the defendants to compel the plaintiff to submit to a medical examination is GRANTED as requested as to date, time, and place.

The court is not ruling on the plaintiff’s objections as to how the examination will be conducted (e.g., whether and to what extent an “oral history” may be requested) as such a ruling would be premature.  That said, the statute is silent as to whether an “oral history” is appropriate.  As the Rutter Group points out (Civ. Proc. Before Trial, sec. 8:1520.1) the physician is entitled to ask some questions, but how far that extends is unknown.  As the Rutter Group explains, “Counsel can protect against inappropriate questioning by exercising the right to be present to observe and record the examination.”

If the plaintiff does not permit pertinent questions that will enable the physician to do his/her job, the matter may be brought to the court’s attention with the specific questions and refusals at issue.

In the interest of justice, the competing requests for sanctions are DENIED.  The court is not inclined to continue the trial currently scheduled for December 12, 2022, at 9 am.  However, the court would not reject a stipulation to continue if good cause is shown.

As an aside, the court recognizes that the motion does not conform to the rules.  For example, there is no separate statement.  The motion also exceeds the page limitations and fails to include a table of contents and table of authorities, which is imposed by Rule.  The court is inclined to rule on the merits, however, given the matter is close to trial and the basic relief—the right to conduct a physical examination—is clear.

The defendant shall give notice.