Judge Michael P. Linfield, Case 20STCV00320 2023-01-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 20STCV00320, Date: 2023-01-06 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 20STCV00320 Hearing Date: January 6, 2023 Dept: 34

SUBJECT: Motion for Order Compelling the Mental Examinations of Plaintiffs

Moving Party: Defendant City of Los Angeles

Resp. Party: Plaintiffs Stephen Glick and Alfred Garcia

Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND:

On January 3, 2020, Plaintiffs Stephen Glick and Alfred Garcia filed their Complaint against Defendant City of Los Angeles on causes of action for discrimination and retaliation in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

On February 7, 2020, Defendant filed its Answer.

On September 1, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Discovery of Peace Officer Personnel Records (Pitchess Motion).

On November 30, 2022, the Court granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Qualified. The Court granted the deposition but denied Plaintiffs’ request for production of documents.

On December 6, 2022, the Court denied Defendant’s Ex Parte Application for an Order Compelling the Mental Examination of Plaintiffs or in the Alternative an Order to Shorten Time for Notice of Hearing Re Same.

On December 13, 2022, Defendant filed its Motion for Order Compelling the Mental Examinations of Plaintiffs. Defendant concurrently filed its Proposed Order.

On December 21, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Opposition.

Defendant has not filed a reply or other response.

ANALYSIS:

I. Legal Standard

“Any party may obtain discovery, subject to the restrictions set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2019.010), by means of a physical or mental examination of (1) a party to the action . . . in any action in which the mental or physical condition (including the blood group) of that party or other person is in controversy in the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.020, subd. (a).)

“A mental examination conducted under this chapter shall be performed only by a licensed physician, or by a licensed clinical psychologist who holds a doctoral degree in psychology and has had at least five years of postgraduate experience in the diagnosis of emotional and mental disorders.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.020, subd. (c)(1).)

“If any party desires to obtain discovery by . . . a mental examination, the party shall obtain leave of court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.310, subd. (a).)

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.310, subd. (b).)

“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, subd. (a).)

“If a party stipulates as provided in subdivision (c), the court shall not order a mental examination of a person for whose personal injuries a recovery is being sought except on a showing of exceptional circumstances.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.320, subd. (b).)

“A stipulation by a party under this subdivision shall include both of the following: (1) A stipulation that no claim is being made for mental and emotional distress over and above that usually associated with the physical injuries claimed. (2) A stipulation that no expert testimony regarding this usual mental and emotional distress will be presented at trial in support of the claim for damages.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.320, subd. (c).)

A motion for medical examination over objection requires a separate statement that sets forth the discovery request, the objection thereto, and the reasons why an examination should be compelled. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(6).) A separate statement is not required when no response has been provided to the request for discovery. (Id. at rule 3.1345, subd. (b)(1).)

II. Discussion

Defendant moves the Court for an order compelling the mental examinations of Plaintiffs. (Motion, p. 3:2–3.) Defendant argues that a mental examination is necessary if Plaintiffs are seeking future mental distress damages and past emotional distress damages resulting from pre-existing mental disorders which require expert testimony. (Id. at 2:1–4.)

Plaintiffs oppose the Motion, arguing: (1) that there is no factual or legal basis to compel a mental examination; and (2) that the time for conducting discovery has passed and Defendant did not file a motion to re-open discovery. (Opposition, pp. 4:8, 8:20–22.)

Defendant’s Motion fails on both procedural and substantive grounds.

Procedurally, Defendant has failed to: (1) 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; (2) confirm that the person or persons who will perform the examination are a licensed physician or a licensed clinical psychologist who holds a doctoral degree in psychology and has had at least five years of postgraduate experience in the diagnosis of emotional and mental disorders; (3) file a separate statement that sets forth the discovery request, the objection thereto, and the reasons why an examination should be compelled; or (4) file a motion to re-open discovery after the discovery deadline passed.

Substantively, Defendant has failed to demonstrate good cause. Plaintiff has clearly stated that the situation here is that “Plaintiff has alleged and stipulated under section 2032.320(c)(1)–(2), that no claim is being made for mental and emotional distress over and above that usually associated with the physical injuries claimed and no expert testimony regarding this usual mental and emotional distress will be presented at trial in support of the claim for damages.” (Opposition, p. 6:11–15, emphases omitted.) Defendant’s arguments regarding past and future emotional distress do not justify submitting Plaintiffs to a mental examination. It is not unusual that a “garden variety” emotional distress claim will include future emotional distress.

The Court also notes that Defendant is incorrect when it states that Doyle v. Superior Court (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1878, 1881 holds that “a defense mental examination is required whenever Plaintiff’s [sic] seek future emotional distress damages.” (See Motion, p. 2:6-8.) In Doyle, the trial court ordered Plaintiff to submit to a mental examination; the Court of Appeal issued a writ of mandate vacating the trial court’s order.

“It is elementary that the language used in any opinion is to be understood in the light of the facts and the issue then before the court. Further, cases are not authority for propositions not considered.” (Hinerfeld-Ward, Inc. v. Lipian (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 86, 101; see also Ginns v. Savage (1964) 61 Cal.2d 520, 524, fn. 2 [“Opinions are not authority for propositions not considered.”].) Doyle is not authority that a mental examination is “required whenever Plaintiff seeks future emotional distress damages” as stated in Defendant’s motion. (See Motion, p. 2:6-8.)

“[C]ounsel has a responsibility to the court to accurately present all relevant authority.” (Alicia T. v. County of Los Angeles (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 869, 884-885; Tate v. Canonica (1960) 180 Cal.App.2d 898, 900.) “Honesty in dealing with the courts is of paramount importance, and misleading a judge is, regardless of motives, a serious offense.” (Paine v. State Bar (1939) 14 Cal. 2d 150, 154; see also Di Sabatino v. State Bar (1980) 27 Cal. 3d 159,162-163; Garlow v. State Bar (1982) 30 Cal. 3d 912, 917.) The Court is not finding that Defendant has intentionally misstated case law; however, the Court cautions counsel to be more careful in the future.

III. Conclusion

Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.