Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV02904, Date: 2025-04-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV02904    Hearing Date: April 22, 2025    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On December 18, 2023, plaintiff Sara Flores (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Dalis Near (“Near”) and Lipsky Corporation (“Lipsky”) arising from automobile collision that occurred on December 23, 2021. Plaintiff alleges that Near was operating a motor vehicle while in the course and scope of their employment with Lipsky at the time of the incident.

On March 12, 2025, Plaintiff filed this motion for a protective order. Near and Lipsky each served separate demands for physical examinations and Plaintiff seeks an order limiting the number of physical examinations to one on the grounds that multiple exams would be unreasonably cumulative, duplicative, and unduly burdensome. Plaintiff also argues that the discovery sought is obtainable from other sources that are more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive.

II.          DISCUSSION

In any case in which a plaintiff is seeking recovery for personal injuries, any defendant may demand one physical examination of the plaintiff where: (1) the examination does not include any diagnostic test or procedure that is painful, protracted, or intrusive; and (2) the examination is conducted at a location within 75 miles of the residence of the examinee. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2032.220, subd. (a).) Plaintiff argues that the Defendants should only collectively be able to subject her to one physical examination because multiple exams would be duplicative. In opposition, Near argues that that two examinations are needed because Plaintiff alleges both orthopedic and neurological injuries; Lipsky Corporation filed a notice of joinder to Near’s opposition brief.

“Nowhere does the Legislature specifically limit the number of available examinations, either mental or physical.  The authoritative discovery commentators agree that multiple defense examinations are permitted on the necessary showing of good cause.” (Shapira v. Superior Court (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1249, 1255.) A showing of good cause requires “that the party produce specific facts justifying discovery and that the inquiry be 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.)

Here, Plaintiff’s discovery responses identify that she sustained and is still suffering from a traumatic brain injury, headache, nausea, as well as pain in her neck, shoulders, arms, wrists, hands, back hips, knees, right ankle, and feet. (Opp., Ex. A, FROG No. 6.2.) Given her admission of the range of injuries she has sustained from the collision, the request for two medical examinations from the two separate defendants, each of which is seeking an examination by a different type of specialist from the other, do not warrant a protective order since each defendant is entitled to one examination.

III.        CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order is DENIED.

Dated this 22nd day of April 2025

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.