Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 21STCV30098, Date: 2023-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: January 30, 2022

Case Name: Valdes v. Good Brother’s LLC, et al.

Case No.: 20STCV36549

Matter: Motion to Exclude Expert or to Compel Compliance with Stipulation

Moving Party: Plaintiff Luis Angel Valdes 

Responding Party: Defendant Greenify

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is granted.  The Court compels disclosure subject to a 

protective order.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

On January 12, 2023, Plaintiff Luis Angel Valdes filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants Good Brother’s LLC, Greenify, Estate of Calvin Everhart, and Amazon Logistics, Inc. for (1) negligence per se, (2) negligence, (3) negligent hiring, supervision, or retention, and (4) peculiar risk.  Plaintiff alleges that both he and Calvin Everhart were driving trucks on a highway when Everhart collided head-on with Plaintiff.  Plaintiff was injured, and Everhart died.  The remaining Defendants are alleged to be Everhart’s employers or the like.  

Plaintiff now seeks to exclude the expert of Defendants Greenify and Amazon Logistics, Inc., Ari Kalechstein, PhD, or, alternatively, to compel compliance with the parties’ stipulation regarding a medical exam of Plaintiff.  Plaintiff contends that the parties stipulated to the terms of Plaintiff’s mental exam and that stipulation stated, “[a]t the conclusion of any testing of Plaintiff by Dr. Kalechstein, a copy of the actual test pages, raw data generated, reports generated and all test results regarding Plaintiff shall be provided to Plaintiffs counsel.”  Plaintiff asserts that after the mental exam was taken, Defendants and their expert refused to provide raw data and test materials for the mental exam.  Given the stipulation, Plaintiff contends that the information must be provided or Kalechstein must be excluded as an expert witness.  

Greenify opposes the Motion, arguing that it has produced all non-privileged information and the disclosure of privileged raw data and testing material to Plaintiff would violate Kalechstein’s ethical duties, reveal trade secrets, and undermine the use of these tests in the future by counsel that can memorize the tests and coach their clients.  Greenify insists that it will provide this privileged information only to a licensed psychologist retained by Plaintiff as an expert.  

Plaintiff apparently refuses to retain an expert.

The Court has considered the matter and will, pursuant to the reasoning of Frazier v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Cnty. of Arapahoe (D. Colo. Feb. 3, 2010) 2010 WL 447785 and Taylor v. Erna (D. Mass. Aug. 3, 2009) 2009 WL 2425839, compel that the subject information be provided to Plaintiff within twenty days, subject to a protective order to be stipulated by the parties.  The Motion is granted as set forth herein.  

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.