Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV41690, Date: 2024-06-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV41690    Hearing Date: June 3, 2024    Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION TO COMPEL MENTAL EXAMINATION

Hearing Date: 6/3/24

CASE NO./NAME: 21STCV41690 CHRISTOPHER MATTHEW STUMPF vs ALATUS AEROSYSTEMS

Moving Party: Defendants

Responding Party: Plaintiff

Notice: Sufficient

Ruling: MOTION TO COMPEL MENTAL EXAMINATION 

 IS GRANTED

On November 12, 2021, Plaintiff filed the present complaint alleging he suffers from mental, emotional, and cognitive injuries, including traumatic brain injury (TBI) and myoclonic jerks, as a result of the subject accident. The parties do not dispute that a mental examination is required but, after meeting and conferring, hit an impasse on whether raw test data and testing materials should be provided directly to Plaintiff’s counsel upon completion of the mental examination, and whether both the testing and interview portions of the examination should be audio recorded and provided to Plaintiff’s counsel directly.

In applying CCP § 2032.310 and in balancing Plaintiff’s need for relevant information against the protection of the integrity of the tests, the Court rules as follows:

1.  Raw data and testing materials are to be provided to Plaintiff’s counsel for cross examination purposes and to challenge Defendant’s expert’s conclusions but subject to a protective order, requiring the materials to remain confidential and used solely for the purposes of this case to obviate any concerns over production of raw data.

2.  CCP § 2032.530(a) expressly permits the examinee and/or the examiner to audio record the examination in its entirety; however, it does not provide for or preclude the disclosure of such audio recordings. The disclosure of such material remains within the sound discretion of the trial court. (Randy's Trucking, Inc. v. Superior Court (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 818, 835.) The Court, in its discretion, finds that the use of the recordings for case preparation and cross-examination outweighs Defendant's interests, including the security and integrity of the test as alleged by Defendant. Therefore, the Court orders the audio recording of the interview and testing portion to be provided to Plaintiff’s counsel, subject to a protective order. 

Plaintiff is ordered to attend his mental examination within 60 days of today, subject to the Court’s ruling on the issues listed above.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion.