Judge: Ronald F. Frazier, Case: 37-2022-00017858-CU-PA-CTL, Date: 2023-09-08 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - September 07, 2023

09/08/2023  08:30:00 AM  C-65 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Ronald F. Frazier

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Auto Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00017858-CU-PA-CTL PARNELL VS DIAZ [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 03/13/2023

Defendants' Motion to Compel Neuropsychological Examination of Plaintiff is GRANTED. (ROA 33.) At the outset, the court notes the parties are in general agreement that a neuropsychological examination is appropriate in this case. The court agrees the proposed mental examination is relevant to the subject matter of the case and that Plaintiff has placed his mental condition in controversy. Thus, there is good cause for a mental examination. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2032.320(a).) Plaintiff disputes the proposed scope of the examination, based primarily on the assertion that his consultant performed some of the same tests nearly a year ago in October 2022 and thus several of the tests are duplicative. The court is not persuaded. Defendants' expert Dr. Dean C. Delis may perform the following tests during the examination: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - 4 (WAIS-4) subtests, Wide Range Achievement Test - 5 (WRAT5) subtests, Boston Naming Test or NAB Naming Test, Wechsler Memory Scale-4 (WMS-4) subtests, California Verbal Learning Test-3 (CVLT3), Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS) Subtests, Cognitive Validity Measures, and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 RF (MMPI-2/RF) and/or Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories and/or Delis Rating of Executive Functions.

Plaintiff also asserts he should not be subjected to a clinical interview because he has already been deposed. Again, the court is not persuaded. Dr. Delis may conduct a clinical interview.

The examination is to be conducted on September 15, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. at Dr. Delis' office in Encinitas, California.

Plaintiff seeks an audio recording of the examination. Audio recordings of mental examinations are authorized by law. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2032.530.) Both the examiner and the examinee have the right to record the entire examination. (Ibid.) However, the court has discretion to order the examiner responsible for the audio recording, and opts to do so here. (Golfland Entertainment Centers, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 739, 751.) The court orders Dr. Delis is to record the entire examination by audio and transmit a copy of the audio recording of the entire examination to Plaintiff's counsel within 10 days of completion of the examination.

Beyond the audio recording, Plaintiff also seeks a copy of all raw test data from the examination. Recent case law acknowledges the court has discretion to order raw test data from a mental examination released to Plaintiff's counsel. (Randy's Trucking, Inc. v. Superior Court (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 818, 838-39.) However, the court is not persuaded it is appropriate or necessary here, based on the Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2947553  3 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  PARNELL VS DIAZ [IMAGED]  37-2022-00017858-CU-PA-CTL evidence before it.

Defendants' counsel is ordered to provide a copy of the court's final ruling on this motion to Dr. Delis at least 72 hours prior to the examination.

Plaintiff's counsel is admonished not to cite the rulings of trial courts in any future briefing. Trial court rulings are not law, and they are not relevant to this trial court's determination of the matters in this case.

Likewise, Plaintiff's counsel is admonished not to submit supplemental briefs without leave of court in the future. Plaintiff's initial opposition was already beyond the page limit. (Cal. R. Court, rule 3.1113(d).) Plaintiff's supplemental opposition put Plaintiff in further excess of the page limit. The court has discretion to refuse to consider memoranda that exceed the page limit. (Cal. R. Court, rule 3.1113(g) and rule 3.1300(d).) Further, '[a] memorandum that exceeds 10 pages must include a table of contents and a table of authorities.' (Cal. R. Court, rule 3.1113(f).) Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2947553  3