Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV32513, Date: 2025-02-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV32513    Hearing Date: February 5, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

This case arises out of an incident that occurred on November 13, 2020. Plaintiff Pedro De Los Santos Ortega was struck by a car while riding a bicycle without a helmet as he crossed the intersection of Crenshaw and Marine in the City of Gardena, California. Plaintiff alleges a traumatic brain injury that has affected nearly every aspect of his life and daily function, causing significant cognitive deficits as a result of the accident.

Defendant RCS SAFETY, LLC moves for leave to conduct a mental examination of Plaintiff with Po-Haong Lu, Psy.D. The parties agree that Defendant is entitled to a defense neuropsychological examination of Plaintiff. Given Plaintiff's allegations of traumatic brain injury and significant cognitive decline, the Court agrees and finds good cause for a mental examination.

The only issue concerns the release of the raw data. Defendant contends it should be released to Plaintiff’s psychologist, while Plaintiff argues it should be provided to Plaintiff’s counsel subject to a protective order.

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 orders raw data 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. 

Restricting access to raw data solely to licensed neuropsychologists would force Plaintiff to prematurely disclose their expert’s identity simply to access crucial data, which could compromise Plaintiff’s litigation strategy. Allowing Plaintiff’s counsel direct access ensures that they retain control over the timing of expert disclosures, consistent with standard litigation practices where expert identification is typically delayed until later stages of discovery. Neuropsychologists are also costly to retain, creating a significant financial barrier for plaintiffs with limited means.  Given these considerations, the Court finds that allowing Plaintiff’s counsel access to the raw data outweighs any interest in limiting it exclusively to another expert. The Court therefore orders that raw data from the testing portion be provided directly to Plaintiff’s counsel, subject to a protective order to maintain confidentiality and restrict its use to this case. 

Accordingly, the motion for leave to conduct a mental examination is granted subject to the limitation above.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.