Judge: Michael J. Strickroth, Case: 2021-01190813, Date: 2023-08-21 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Compel Physical/Mental Examination

Defendant Sandra Varga’s Motion to Compel Mental Examination of Plaintiff is DENIED.

Defendant moves to compel a mental examination of Plaintiff pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.310. Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.310 provides in part:

“(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.”

“The court shall grant a motion for a physical or mental examination under Section 2032.310 only for good cause shown.” Code Civ. Proc. § 2032.320(a).

“Determining that the mental or physical condition of a party is in controversy is but the first step in our analysis. In contrast to more pedestrian discovery procedures, a mental or physical examination requires the discovering party to obtain a court order. The court may grant the motion only for good cause shown.[¶] Section 2036 defines a showing of “good cause” as requiring that the party produce specific facts justifying discovery and that the inquiry be relevant to the subject matter of the action or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The requirement of a court order following a showing of good cause is doubtless designed to protect an examinee's privacy interest by preventing an examination from becoming an annoying fishing expedition. While a plaintiff may place his mental state in controversy by a general allegation of severe emotional distress, the opposing party may not require him to undergo psychiatric testing solely on the basis of speculation that something of interest may surface.” Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 840.

Defendant contends good cause exists to compel a mental examination of Plaintiff for the following reasons: (1) Plaintiff is claiming chronic pain and associated psychological injuries as a result of the incident, as evidenced by Plaintiff’s life care plan dated 04-25-2023, (2) Plaintiff has a prior history of psychological treatment and various psychological conditions which contribute to undermining her credibility in this case.

Defendant’s main argument that a mental examination is warranted in this case appears to be supported by a life care plan Plaintiff served on Defendant on 04-25-2023. (Lafer Decl., ¶ 12, Exhibit C.) The life care plan indicates Plaintiff will require life-long treatment for a “Pain Psychologist.”

In Opposition, Plaintiff contends the motion should be denied for the following reasons: (1) plaintiff is not claiming psychological injuries or damages in this case, as the life care plan referenced in the motion is from an expert that has since been de-designated, (2) plaintiff’s prior psychological treatment or conditions are not relevant to this case, as Defendant’s references to same are an improper attempt at creating a secondary motive for Plaintiff to file this case.

Plaintiff’s Opposition relies on the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel Brent W. Caldwell (Caldwell). Caldwell attests as follows: “Plaintiff is not making any claim for mental health damages nor has Plaintiff designated any mental health/psychiatry expert. [¶] The email correspondence attached hereto as Exhibit A, accurately reflects my email to opposing counsel in which I informed them that we would be de-designating expert Craigmyle.” (Caldwell Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.)

Because plaintiff’s counsel has declared under penalty of perjury that Plaintiff is not claiming mental health damages and has withdrawn the life care expert who provided the life care plan discussed in the motion, the Court finds Defendant has not demonstrated good cause for a mental examination. Therefore, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff is to give notice.