Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV44220, Date: 2023-01-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44220    Hearing Date: January 6, 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 Amarjit Chhabra and Rashabjit Singh Chhabra (collectively, Defendants) move to compel Plaintiff James Long (Plaintiff) to submit to an independent medical examination by Arthur Kreitenberg, M.D. (Kreitenberg).  Defendants request monetary sanctions.  Plaintiff opposes the motion.  

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 August 2, 2022, Defendants noticed Plaintiff’s examination for September 12, 2022, at 10:45 a.m. with Kreitenberg.  Plaintiff failed to appear for examination on that date.  As of the filing date of this motion, Plaintiff has not appeared for examination. 

In opposition, 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 “[f]or medical examination over objection[.]”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(6).”  Here, Plaintiff served an objection to Defendants notice of defense medical examination on August 5, 2022. The Court finds that Defendants have not filed a separate statement in compliance with Rule 3.1345. 

Both parties seek monetary sanctions in connection with motion.  The Court finds Defendants have unsuccessfully made a motion to compel compliance with demand for a physical examination, warranting monetary sanctions.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §¿2032.250, subd. (b).)  Thus, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Defendants and their counsel of record, Lowell G. Houghton of the Law Offices of Robyn S. Hosmer, in the amount of $400, which represents two hours of attorney time to prepare the opposition and attend the hearing at $200 per hour.   

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court denies without prejudice Defendants’ motion to compel the physical examination of Plaintiff as procedurally defective.

Further, the Court orders Defendants’ and Defendants’ counsel of record, Lowell G. Houghton of the Law Offices of Robyn S. Hosmer, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $400 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel for Plaintiff, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Defendants shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.