Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 22STCV23028, Date: 2024-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV23028    Hearing Date: February 7, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to submit to an IME is GRANTED.

On 7/18/2022, Christian Ochoa (Plaintiff) filed suit against the Regents of the University of California aka University of California, Los Angeles (Defendant or UCLA), alleging: (1) discrimination; (2) harassment; (3) retaliation; (4) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation; (5) failure to accommodate; (6) failure to engage in interactive process; and (7) whistleblower retaliation.

            Now, Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff to submit to an Independent Medical Examination (IME).

Legal Standard

CCP section 2032.210 provides:

(a) If any party desires to obtain discovery by a physical examination other than that described in Article 2 (commencing with Section 2032.210), or 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.

Discussion

Defendant argues that good cause exists to order Plaintiff to submit to an IME because Plaintiff asserts that his alleged mental distress was a direct result of Defendant’s alleged actions. As a result, Defendant is entitled to explore whether there are alternative sources for Plaintiff’s alleged injuries.

After review, the Court agrees.

In Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal. 3d 833, 840-841, the Supreme Court of California held: “[A] party who chooses to allege that he has mental and emotional difficulties can hardly deny his mental state is in controversy. . . [P]laintiff haled defendants into court and accused them of causing her various mental and emotional aliments . . . [B]y asserting a causal link between her mental distress and defendant's conduct, plaintiff implicitly claims that it was not caused by a preexisting mental condition thereby raising the question of alternative sources for the distress. We thus conclude that her mental state is in controversy.” (Vinson, 43 Cal. 3d at p. 839.)

Here, similarly, Plaintiff alleges that he has suffered, and continues to suffer, severe emotional and mental distress as a result of Defendant’s alleged conduct. Specifically, he claims the following as physical, mental, or emotional injuries: “[m]ental disabilities, including humiliation, embarrassment, stress, mental and emotional distress, depression, anxiety, discomfort, mental anguish.” (Plaintiff’s Response to Form Interrogatory—Employment 212.2.) (Parker Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. F.) Plaintiff repeated these identified mental and emotional injuries in response to other interrogatories (Plaintiff’s Response to Form Interrogatory— Employment 204.2) and claims that the mental and emotional injuries are ongoing. (Plaintiff’s Response to Form Interrogatory—Employment 212.3.) (Parker Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. F.)

It is axiomatic that “allegations of . . . mental injury in the complaint and denial of the injury or the extent of the injury places the condition in controversy.” (Reuter v. Superior Court (1979) 93 Cal. App. 3d 332, 341, citing Schlagenhauf v. Holder (1964) 379 U.S. 104, 119.) Accordingly, Defendant is entitled to explore whether there are alternative sources for Plaintiff’s alleged injuries.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to submit to an IME is granted.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  February    , 2024

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.