Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 21CMCV00176, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling
INSTRUCTIONS: If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must:
1. Contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling.
2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and
3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service.
If this procedure is followed, when the case is called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing. If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may either be taken off calendar or ruled on.
TENTATIVE RULINGS -- http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/u
Case Number: 21CMCV00176 Hearing Date: May 18, 2023 Dept: A
21CMCV00176
Laura Mendoza v. Paramount Transportation Logistics Services, LLC, et al.
[TENTATIVE]
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT
TO MENTAL STATUS EXAMINATION
I.
BACKGROUND
The
complaint alleges that Defendants employed Plaintiff as a quality control
clerk. Defendants allegedly failed to reasonably accommodate Plaintiff’s disability.
Plaintiff’s supervisors also subjected her to daily harassment. Plaintiff
resigned because she was unable to continue working in that environment.
Plaintiff alleges 13 causes of action for violations of the Federal Employment
and Housing Act (“FEHA”), wage violations under the Labor Code and for wrongful
constructive termination.
II.
ARGUMENTS
Defendant, Paramount
Transportation Logistics Services, LLC, requests an order to compel Plaintiff’s
appearance for a mental examination given that she has placed her mental
condition in controversy by alleging she suffers from a disability from
depression, stress, and anxiety and that Defendants discriminated against her
because of her disability. Plaintiff sought treatment from a psychologist
following her resignation. Plaintiff refuses to stipulate to a mental status
examination. Defendant met and conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel without
success.
Plaintiff argues that she
is not refusing to submit to a mental examination. Defendant unilaterally
selected May 26, 2023, for the date of the examination, and Plaintiff requested
a later date after Plaintiff completed discovery. Plaintiff agreed to pause its
discovery requests for nine depositions since Defendant proposed mediation,
which was completed on April 24, 2023. However, Plaintiff contends that Defendant
did not act in good faith at the mediation which was unsuccessful. Plaintiff
contends Defendant intended to delay Plaintiff’s discovery efforts.
Defendant contends
that Plaintiff’s mental status is in controversy. There is good cause for the
motion. Plaintiff does not say she is not available on the scheduled date.
Plaintiff’s counsel is not entitled to be present at the examination,
therefore, Plaintiff’s counsel’s schedule is not relevant. This is the only date that Defendant’s expert
is available to conduct the Ex before the July 24, 2023, trial date.
III.
DISCUSSION
A demand that
Plaintiff undergo a mental examination requires leave of court and a showing of
good cause. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.310.) The moving
party must submit a meet and confer declaration. (Id.) “Good cause” is
established where there are specific facts justifying discovery and the inquiry
is relevant to the subject matter of the action or reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43
Cal.3d 833, 840.)
Plaintiff does not dispute
that her mental condition is in controversy. (Opp. 2:4-9.) Plaintiff alleges
she suffers from a disability because of stress, depression, and anxiety which
Defendants allegedly refused to accommodate. (Complaint, ¶9.b, ¶193.) Plaintiff
has not shown why the order of discovery should be changed to delay the mental
status examination until Plaintiff has completed depositions. (See Decl
of Gavril Gabriel, ¶ 12.) Plaintiff’s counsel does not contend that Plaintiff or
her counsel cannot appear on the scheduled date for the examination.
Plaintiff’s need for discovery
cannot operate to delay another party’s discovery requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2019.020.) The Court
has jurisdiction to establish the sequence and timing of discovery for the
parties’ convenience or in the interests of justice, however, Plaintiff has not
demonstrated that delaying Plaintiff’s mental examination until after Plaintiff
completes discovery is warranted for those reasons.
A party who secures
discovery first “may derive advantages by securing information from his
adversary before he is required to reciprocate by divulging information to him.
Parties should be encouraged to expedite discovery and should not needlessly be
deprived of the advantages that normally flow from prompt action.” (Poeschl v. Superior Court In and For Ventura County (1964) 229 Cal.App.2d 383, 386.)
IV. CONCLUSION
As there is no dispute that Plaintiff’s
mental condition is at issue and because Plaintiff has not shown any cause for
delay, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.