Judge: Marcella O. Mclaughlin, Case: 37-2022-00021527-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2024-06-14 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 13, 2024

06/14/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Marcella O McLaughlin

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other employment Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00021527-CU-OE-CTL HARGROVE VS NBC UNIVERSAL [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 05/20/2024

A. Defendants' unopposed motion to conduct plaintiff's independent mental examination is GRANTED.

The court finds that defendants have established good cause for the requested examination. Code Civ.

Proc. § 2032.320(a).

Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to appear for an examination with Dr. Marc Cohen, located at Courtyard by Marriot, 530 Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101 on July 15, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. The parties may agree to change the date, time, or location of the examination but, absent such an agreement, plaintiff must appear for the examination as set forth herein. The examination must consist of the matters described in the paragraph 11 of the Reinhart declaration. See ROA 150.

B. Defendants' motion to compel production of medical records is DENIED.

As an initial matter, the court denies defendants' request to strike the opposition brief. 'All papers opposing a motion...shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine court days...before the hearing.' Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b). Here, the opposition was filed and served on June 3, 2024. This was nine court days before the hearing. Thus, the opposition was timely.

Turning to the merits, the court cannot order plaintiff to produce therapy records which are inaccessible to him. See Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.010(a); see also Thomas B. v. Superior Court (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 255, 263-64. Nor can the court compel plaintiff to execute an authorization for the release of those records. Defendants have not cited any case or statute supporting such a request. See Holm v. Superior Court (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1241, 1247 ('[C]ourts are without power to expand the methods of civil discovery beyond those authorized by statute.'). Defendants' remedy is a motion to compel compliance with a deposition subpoena. See Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1; see also Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1351.

All requests for sanctions are denied. Defendants' request is denied in light of the court's ruling on the motion. Plaintiff's request is denied as the court finds that circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust.

In issuing this ruling, the court has not considered the three trial court decisions cited in the moving papers. This is improper and it is the second time defense counsel has engaged in such conduct. See ROA 131 at p. 2. '[A] written trial court ruling has no precedential value.' Bolanos v. Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 744, 761 (emphasis added). Persistent use of unpublished authority may be Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3109484  9 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  HARGROVE VS NBC UNIVERSAL [IMAGED]  37-2022-00021527-CU-OE-CTL cause for sanctions. People v. Williams (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1521, 1529.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3109484  9