Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV14815, Date: 2023-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV14815    Hearing Date: January 18, 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

MOTION

              Defendants Alejandra De La Trinidad and Salvador Acevedo Jr. (collectively, Defendants) move to compel Plaintiff Patrick Gray (Patrick) to submit to an independent medical examination with Dr. David Hoenig (Hoenig).  Defendants request monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  Plaintiff opposes the motion.  Defendants reply.

ANALYSIS

            When the physical condition of the plaintiff is in controversy in a personal injury case, the defendant may obtain a physical examination of the plaintiff.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2032.020, 2032.220.)  A defendant is entitled to one physical examination of the plaintiff in a personal injury action on demand.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.220, subd. (a).) 

Here, on April 25, 2022, Defendants noticed Plaintiff’s examination for July 19, 2022 with Hoenig, by electronic transmission.  (Declaration of Eric L. Anderson, ¶ 4, Exhibit A.). Plaintiff served a Response to Defendants’ Demand for Defense Medical Examination on April 26, 2022, electronically, insisting on a limitation of the scope, testing, and duration of the exam.  (Declaration of Eric L. Anderson, ¶ 5, Exhibit B.)  Following Plaintiff’s response, Plaintiff and Defendants engaged in extensive communications discussing the scope of the subject medical examination.  (Declaration of Eric L. Anderson, ¶¶ 6-12.). On July 11, 2022, Defendants took the subject medical examination off calendar.  (Declaration of Timothy P. Mitchell, ¶ 12, Exhibit 9.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the instant motion is premature because Defendants cancelled the subject medical examination prior to it taking place.  The Court agrees.  The Court cannot determine whether it is necessary to compel Plaintiff’s attendance to the medical examination before Plaintiff has had the opportunity to attend. 

Accordingly, the Court denies the motion as premature.  Defendants shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.