Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV18249, Date: 2025-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV18249    Hearing Date: February 21, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On August 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed this case, arising from a pedestrian versus automobile collision that occurred on October 28, 2021, at approximately 11:43 a.m. on Wilshire Boulevard, just east of Crescent Heights Boulevard in Los Angeles. On October 29, 2024, Defendant conducted Plaintiff’s mental examination. The parties agreed to proceed with the examination first and then meet and confer regarding the delivery of the raw data. After failing to reach an agreement, Plaintiff moves the Court to compel the delivery of the raw data to Plaintiff’s counsel. Trial is set for March 26, 2025.

At issue in this motion is whether the raw data should be provided directly to Plaintiff’s counsel or instead to Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Anthony Reading. Defendant correctly asserts that the Court has discretion in determining how the raw data is disclosed. While various cases affirm Plaintiff’s right to access the raw data, none directly address whether the data must be provided to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel or only through an intermediary, such as Plaintiff’s psychologist.

Courts typically balance Plaintiff’s need for access to the data against Defendant’s ethical concerns and the need to protect the integrity of the test. Typically, this Court orders disclosure to counsel because requiring an expert before disclosure could create a financial barrier for Plaintiffs who lack the resources to retain one. Additionally, early disclosure could prematurely reveal the identity of Plaintiff’s expert.

However, those concerns are not present here. Plaintiff has already retained an expert, whose identity is known. More importantly, the examination has already been conducted, and trial is scheduled for March 26, 2025. Dr. Earl C. Thorndyke, the expert who performed the neuropsychological examination, has stated that he will recuse himself if required to provide the test information directly to Plaintiff’s counsel. Had this motion been brought before the examination, and had the Court ordered raw data to be provided to counsel, Defendant could have selected a psychologist willing to comply. At this stage, Defendant no longer has that option.

Plaintiff, in the reply, cites multiple cases affirming the right to access raw data. The dispute is not whether Plaintiff is entitled to the data but whether it should be provided directly to Plaintiff’s counsel. Plaintiff does not contend that his expert would refuse to share the raw data with counsel.

Accordingly, balancing the interests of both parties, the Court exercises its discretion and denies Plaintiff’s motion.

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.