Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 21STCV37404, Date: 2023-03-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV37404    Hearing Date: March 9, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: March 9, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Compel Neuropsychological Examination of Plaintiff

Moving Party: Defendants The Milken Family Foundation, Gary Panas and Larry Lesser

Responding Party: Plaintiff Gayl Abbey

T/R:     DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IS GRANTED.

DEFENDANTS TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing. 

            The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

“(a) If any party desires to obtain discovery by a physical examination other than that described in Article 2 (commencing with Section 2032.210), or by a mental examination, the party shall obtain leave of court.  (b) A motion for an examination under subdivision (a) shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination, as well as the identity and the specialty, if any, of the person or persons who will perform the examination. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.”  (CCP § 2032.310.)  “The court shall grant a motion for a physical or mental examination under Section 2032.310 only for good cause shown.”  (CCP § 2032.320(a).) 

            Defendants move to compel Plaintiff to sit for a neuropsychological exam. On January 13, 2023, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for a mental examination and denied Defendants’ motion for a neurological exam. The Court stated that if the mental exam showed a need for a neurological exam, the Court would revisit the request. Defendants assert that, based on the mental examination, the examining physician diagnosed Plaintiff with dementia and recommended Plaintiff sit for a neuropsychological exam. (Decl. Cohen ¶¶ 4-6.)

            As the examining physician has recommended a neuropsychological evaluation, the Court will require Plaintiff to participate in such an exam. The Court rejects Plaintiff’s characterization of the examination conducted by the physician.

            Defendants’ motion is GRANTED.