SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background 

Plaintiff Zhao Sheng Yuan Monsanto, by and through her guardian ad litem Diana Monsanto (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant MV Transportation, Inc. (“Defendant”) for damages arising from the operation of a bus, wherein Plaintiff alleges the sudden application of brakes caused Plaintiff to propel her from her seat and to hit her head against a pole.  

Plaintiff filed the instant motion for an order compelling Defendant to produce the raw data of Plaintiff’s neuropsychological examination by defense expert Chrisy L. Hom, PH.S (“Dr. Hom”) directly to Plaintiff’s counsel.  

Defendant opposes the motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply. 

II. Motion to Compel Defense Mental Examination Raw Data 

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.610, a party that submitted to a mental examination has the option to demand that the party that requested the examination produce “[a] copy of a detailed written report setting out the history, examinations, findings, including the results of all tests made, diagnoses, prognoses, and conclusions of the examiner.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.610, subd. (a).)   

Plaintiff contends Defendant was required to produce actual tests, test answers, interpretative materials used, literature, reports of tests, raw data generated, scoring, and all test results associated with Dr. Boone’s evaluation of Plaintiff per Plaintiff’s demand. Plaintiff’s counsel argues they are entitled to these materials to assess the basis of Dr. Boone’s expert opinions, and to challenge Dr. Boone’s opinions. Relying on Carpenter v. Superior Ct., 141 Cal. App. 4th 249 and Randy’s Trucking, Inc. et al. v. Superior Court, (2023) 91 Cal. App. 5th 818, Plaintiff avers that raw data should be provided to Plaintiff’s counsel subject to a protective order, requiring the materials to remain confidential and used solely for the purposes of this case to obviate any concerns over production of raw data. 

In Carpenter v. Superior Ct., 141 Cal. App. 4th 249, the appellate court declined to address whether disclosure of the test questions and Plaintiff’s responses would violate the examiner’s ethical and professional obligations in reference to the APA Ethical Standards, because the materials were not presented to the trial court. “The fact that section 2032.530 permits the mental examination to be audiotaped, however, does not provide statutory authority for compelling the examiner to provide a copy of the written test questions and answers.” (Id. at 271.) However, although there is no express statutory authority, “neither is there statutory authority precluding a trial court, in its discretion, from ordering the disclosure of the written test questions and answers.” (Ibid.) Therefore, the appellate court decided it would be “remanding the matter for the trial court to decide the issue anew, the court may consider at that time the parties' arguments regarding the examiner's ethical and professional obligations.” (Id. at p. 275) The appellate court recognized the trial court has broad discretion in discovery matters, and has the discretion to order the disclosure of such materials even if no statute authorizes it.   

Randy’s Trucking, Inc. et al. v. Superior Court, (2023) 91 Cal.App. 5th 818, a recently published decision from the Court of Appeal, provides a measure of guidance on the issue. Decisions of every division of every district of the CA Courts of Appeal are binding on all Superior Courts in California. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc., 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455.) Randy’s Trucking, consistent with the rationale provided in Carpenter v. Superior Ct. (2006) 141 Cal. App. 4th 249 and Roe v. Superior Ct. (2015) 243 Cal. App. 4th 138, affirmed that the court has discretion to order the disclosure of such materials even if no statute authorizes it.  

Here, Plaintiff has articulated a legitimate need for the raw data, and any potential concerns regarding test security would be satisfied with Plaintiff’s agreement that production will be subject to a protective order. In terms of Dr. Hom’s stated refusal to not produce even if subject to a protective order, both parties were aware of this unresolved contention at the time the mental examination proceeded with Dr. Hom. The stipulation, reached for the purpose of Plaintiff’s mental examination moving forward, has no bearing on the issue. 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to produce to Plaintiff’s counsel the raw data of Dr. Hom’s neuropsychological examination of Plaintiff is GRANTED, but subject to the following: The Court orders the parties to meet and confer to draft a stipulated protective order confining the scope of disclosure and use of the raw test data of the examination so that it may be properly used by Plaintiff’s counsel to conduct cross-examination of Defendant’s experts. The protective order should include instructions to destroy the material at the conclusion of the matter. 

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.