Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV05930, Date: 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV05930    Hearing Date: January 13, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

              Plaintiff Rodrigo Castillo (Plaintiff) sued Defendants Steven Fein and Sheila Fein (collectively, Defendants) based injuries Plaintiff alleges he sustained when he was trimming a tree for Defendants and fell out of the tree.  Defendants move to compel Plaintiff to attend a neuropsychological examination conducted by Jose Fuentes, Ph.D.  Plaintiff opposes the motion.  Defendants reply.

Preliminarily, Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ motion must be denied for failure to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, which requires “[a]ny motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request…be accompanied by a separate statement,” which includes a motion to compel “medical examination over objection.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(6).”  Plaintiff served an objection to the motion to compel neuropsychological examination at issue.  (See Declaration of James W. Gates, ¶ 15.) The Court finds that Defendants have not filed a separate statement in compliance with Rule 3.1345.  Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants’ motion as procedurally defective.