Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 23STCV16161, Date: 2025-04-15 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff, Linda Mansolillo, brings this employment action against Defendant, GRAIL LLC (sued as “GRAIL, Inc.”), for (1) Harassment in Violation of FEHA, (2) Discrimination in Violation of FEHA, (3) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA, (4) Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment in Violation of the Fair Employment & Housing Act, (5) Violation of California Equal Pay Act, (6) Discrimination and Retaliation in Violation of California Equal Pay Act, (7) Whistleblower Retaliation, and (8) Labor Code Retaliation. As relevant here, Plaintiff alleges she suffered mental and emotional distress because of Defendant’s conduct.

Defendant deposed Plaintiff. At her deposition, Plaintiff testified to suffering physical injuries stemming from the emotional and mental distress because of Defendant’s conduct. Thereafter, and at different times, Defendant sought a stipulation from Plaintiff to conduct a physical examination or, in the alternative, to stipulate that Plaintiff will not seek to introduce evidence of her physical injuries or to seek to recover damages for her alleged physical injuries. Plaintiff stated generally that she would stipulate that she is not seeking damages for her physical ailments, but otherwise declined both proposed stipulations.

The parties participated in an informal discovery conference with the discovery referee regarding this and other disputes. As relevant here, Defendant requested to conduct a physical examination of Plaintiff. On November 11, 2024, the referee denied the request because good cause did not exist to compel Plaintiff’s physical examination and Defendant had not brought the required formal motion. The referee’s report further directed Defendant to bring a formal motion with this court or with the referee if Defendant still sought to conduct the examination.

On January 22, 2025, Defendant filed this motion to compel the physical examination of Plaintiff.

“Except for defense physicals in personal injury cases (¶ 8:1516) and exams arranged by stipulation (¶ 8:1512), a court order is required for a § 2032.010 et seq. physical or mental examination. Such order may be made only after notice and hearing, and for “good cause shown.” [CCP § 2032.320(a); see Conservatorship of G.H. (2014) 227 CA4th 1435, 1441, 174 CR3d 536, 540].” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2024) ¶ 8:1546.)

The issue to be decided is straightforward. Does good cause exist to compel Plaintiff’s physical examination when (1) she testified to suffering physical ailments stemming from her claimed emotional and mental distress and (2) while agreeable to stipulate that she is not seeking damages for those physical maladies, she refuses to stipulate that she will not introduce evidence of her physical injuries that can and will be used to corroborate her emotional and mental distress?

Under these circumstances, good cause exists to compel such an examination because Plaintiff will likely argue her physical ailments corroborate and confirm her emotional and mental distress. Should Plaintiff seek to create a causal link between her physical injuries and the emotional and mental distress resulting from Defendant’s alleged conduct, Plaintiff has placed those physical injuries in controversy. (See, e.g., Vinson v. Superior Court (1983) 43 Cal.3d 833, 839-840 [“In the case at bar, plaintiff haled defendants into court and accused them of causing her various mental and emotional ailments. Defendants deny her charges. As a result, the existence and extent of her mental injuries is indubitably in dispute. In addition, by asserting a causal link between her mental distress and defendants' conduct, plaintiff implicitly claims 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.”].) Given the foregoing assumptions, the court grants Defendant’s motion to compel the physical examination.[2]

The motion to compel a physical examination is GRANTED. However, the court will hear from the parties regarding the date for the examination and will discuss with the parties scope of the examination.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] The court is aware Plaintiff’s seek to continue the hearing on this motion. However, Plaintiff did not seek a continuance of this motion in her March 19, 2025 ex parte application wherein the court considered other matters. Perhaps that was an oversight on the Plaintiff’s part or Plaintiff did not believe she needed additional time to address this motion. Nonetheless, given the briefing and the ongoing discovery litigation as outlined in the Motion and Reply, delaying the ruling on this motion is inappropriate and unnecessary. The court will order that the examination take place on a date after the ruling on the summary judgment motion.

[2] If, however, Plaintiff agrees to stipulate that she is not seeking to recover for her physical injuries and will not seek to introduce evidence of the same, good cause for a physical examination would not exist.