Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 23STCV13173, Date: 2024-08-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV13173    Hearing Date: August 6, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s medical examination is GRANTED. 

            On 6/8/2024, Plaintiff Alice Zandpour (Plaintiff) filed suit against Bank of Southern California, N.A. (Defendant), alleging: (1) gender discrimination; (2) national origin discrimination; (3) failure to prevent discrimination; (4) retaliation; (5) retaliation; (6) wrongful constructive termination; (7) intentional misrepresentation; and (8) unlawful business practices.

            On 7/15/2024, Defendant moved to compel a mental evaluation of Plaintiff.

Discussion 

Defendant seeks to have Plaintiff evaluated by Defendant’s medical examiner, Matthew Carroll, M.D., a Board Certified psychiatrist and neurologist, on September 3, 2024, at Veritext Legal Solutions, 611 Anton Blvd #500, Costa Mesa, CA 92626, commencing at 9:00 a.m.

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.020(a), “[a]ny party may obtain discovery . . . by means of a physical or mental examination of (1) a party to the action . . . in any action in which the mental or physical condition . . . of that party or other person is in controversy in the action.” If the parties cannot stipulate to the mental examination of a plaintiff, this Court may order such examination “for good cause shown.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2032.320(a).)

Where a plaintiff alleges injuries for which the plaintiff seeks damages, the mental or physical condition of the plaintiff is placed “in controversy,” and “good cause” exists for a defendant to compel a mental or physical examination of the plaintiff. Interpreting a similar federal rule, the United States Supreme Court has held that in situations like the case at hand, the pleadings alone are sufficient to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35, which permits a mental or physical examination where the plaintiff’s condition is “in controversy.” (Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a)(1); see Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 119 (1964).) The California Supreme Court applied this principle in the employment context, stating that “[a] party who chooses to allege that he has mental and emotional difficulties can hardly deny his mental state is in controversy.” (Vinson v. Superior Court, 43 Cal. 3d 833, 839 (1987); see also Reuter v. Superior Court, 93 Cal. App. 3d 332, 340 (1972) (a plaintiff’s allegations in the pleadings place mental condition “in controversy” and support an order for mental examination of plaintiff); Doyle v. Superior Court, 50 Cal. App. 4th 1878, 1886- 87 (1996).)

Further, it is proper to compel an IME where good cause exists. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2032.320(a).) Good cause is shown where the discovery sought is relevant to the subject matter and the facts suggest the need for discovery. In particular, good cause exists to compel a plaintiff to submit to a mental examination where the plaintiff pleads emotional distress damages as the result of alleged harassment in the workplace. (Vinson, supra, 43 Cal. 3d at 840-41.)

Here, Plaintiff alleges that as a result of Defendant’s alleged conduct she suffered, and continues to suffer, various physical, psychological, and emotional damages, including “humiliation, emotional distress, and physical and mental pain.” (Complaint ¶¶ 52, 63, 72, 79, 85, 96). Plaintiff’s Prayer for Relief also seeks general damages, which include emotional distress damages. (Complaint, Prayer for Relief.) Likewise, Plaintiff’s verified discovery responses also demonstrate that her mental condition is at issue in this matter.

As such, the Court finds good cause to compel Plaintiff’s medical examination. While the Court finds Plaintiff’s proposed limitation of questioning to one year prior to the alleged wrongs, or April 1, 2021, to the present to be unreasonable, the Court does find a 10-year time limit to be reasonable, and will not prejudice Defendant’s ability to obtain relevant context from Plaintiff’s social, interpersonal, familial, medical, and occupational history.

Any risk of overbreadth or irrelevance is mitigated by the fact that Defendant does not seek to ask Plaintiff about every medical or psychotherapeutic injury that does not relate to her claimed injuries. (Carroll Decl. ISO Reply ¶ 6 [“I will only be asking Plaintiff questions about her history that, based on my credentials and experience, are relevant to my assessment of her claim of damages in this case”].)

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s medical examination is granted. 

It is so ordered.

Dated:  August    , 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.