Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 23STCV23077, Date: 2025-02-25 Tentative Ruling

On September 15, 2023, Plaintiff Darral Scott filed this action against Defendants County of Los Angeles, Deputy Justin Sabatine, and Deputy Jacob Ruiz.

On January 3, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to compel the mental examination of Plaintiff.

A party must obtain leave of court when seeking to obtain discovery by a physical examination or a mental examination. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2032.310, subd. (a).) A motion for an examination shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination, as well as the identity and specialty, if any, of the person or persons who will perform the examination. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.310, subd. (b).) The Court shall grant the motion only for good cause shown. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.320, subd. (a).)

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges emotional distress including “fear, anxiety, nightmares, anger, frustration, humiliation, and other emotional injuries, loss of his time, invasion of his privacy and property, and the loss of various rights.” (Complaint ¶¶ 91, 99, 104, 111, 121.) His medical records document severe distress; interference with work, socializing, and relationships; PTSD with panic attacks; prescription medication; disturbed sleep patterns; paranoia; and other concerns. (Miller Decl., Ex. A.) Plaintiff’s discovery responses identify his injuries, “including but not limited to PTSD, panic, anxiety, depression, sleeplessness, social anxiety, fear of public speaking, fear of driving, and a fear of the police,” which are ongoing and “getting worse.” (Miller Decl., Ex. B.) At his deposition, Plaintiff testified that he has nightmares about the incident and takes medication for anxiety, depression, and sleep. (Miller Decl., Ex. C.) Plaintiff has refused to stipulate to a mental examination. (Miller Decl. ¶¶ 8-9 & Exs. E-F.)

Plaintiff argues that Defendants improperly seek to use the mental examination to test his credibility. (Opposition at pp. 2-3.) It is true that “[m]ental examinations are not authorized for the purpose of testing a person’s ‘credibility.’” (Doyle v. Superior Court (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1878, 1886.) But the mental examination requested here is not for that purpose. In Doyle, cited by Plaintiff, a party sought a mental examination to “‘test . . . the extent of the alleged distress . . . [and Doyle’s] credibility.’” (Ibid., alterations in original.) Doyle’s current mental condition did not have any relevance to the extent of her mental distress suffered by past events. (Ibid.) “The mental condition of a person who is suffering ongoing mental distress is clearly ‘in controversy’ in an action seeking damages for that ongoing mental distress. The ‘controversy’ surrounding such a person’s mental condition includes not only the nature and extent of the person’s current mental injury but also the actual cause of this injury.” (Id. at p. 1887.) That is the case here.

With respect to Plaintiff’s objection to tests that assess “exaggeration of symptoms,” there is no evidence that these are tests of credibility or that Plaintiff’s proposed alternative tests are appropriate. (Opposition at pp. 2-3) Defendant’s proposed tests are “generally accepted standardized psychological testing.” (Saint Martin Decl. ¶ 3.)

Plaintiff argues that he should not be questioned about his irrelevant sexual relations or marital history. (Opposition at p. 4.) Contrary to Defendant’s contention, Plaintiff has not placed his relationship and sexual history at issue by reporting certain problems to his doctors. (Reply at p. 6.) Plaintiff has not alleged any damages arising from those bases. The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s “marital history should not be included in the scope of the examination beyond information that is directly relevant to his claim of emotional distress, such as whether she is a current support to him, whether the relationship is a current stressor, and whether their relationship has caused him symptoms of distress since the incident at issue here.” (Opposition at p. 4.)

Finally, Plaintiff requests that the mental examination be limited to any emotional distress that appeared within three years prior to the incident and the time since the incident. (Opposition at p. 5.) Plaintiff provides no basis for this specific limitation.

Defendants’ motion complies with Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.310, and the Court finds there is good cause to order a mental examination “limited to the mental, and/or emotional conditions placed in controversy by Plaintiff in this litigation.” (Saint Martin Decl. ¶ 17.)

Because the motion and proposed order identify an examination date that has already passed, at the hearing, the parties should be prepared to discuss scheduling a new date.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. Even if all parties submit, counsel is still ordered to appear at the hearing so they can choose an examination date.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court