Case Number: BC469876    Hearing Date: September 04, 2014    Dept: 56

Case Name: Lai v. Department of Water and Power, et al.
Case No.: BC469876
Motion: Motion to Compel Examination
Moving Party: Defendant
Responding Party: Plaintiff

Tentative Ruling: Motion is granted.

Plaintiff Kan-Man Lai filed this disability discrimination action against Defendant Los Angeles City Department of Water and Power. Defendant moves to compel the mental examination of Plaintiff, pursuant to CCP §2032.020 & §2032.310.

§2032.020 permits discovery by means of a physical or mental examination of a party in any action in which the mental or physical condition the party is in controversy. The party seeking discovery must obtain leave of court through a motion under §2032.310. The court shall grant a motion for mental examination only for good cause shown. See §2032.320(a); Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 840. Good cause requires a showing that the exam is relevant to the subject matter and that specific facts justify discovery. Vinson, 43 Cal.3d at 840.

Defendant has submitted Plaintiff’s responses to discovery, in which she claims she has suffered psychological injuries as a result of the discriminatory conduct; Plaintiff’s designation of an expert witness Emil Soorani MD, who is expected to testify as to Plaintiff’s psychological state; and Plaintiff’s allegation in the SAC that she is seeking emotional distress damages.

The mental condition of a person who claims mental distress is clearly in controversy. The issues include the nature, extent and cause of any current mental injury. See Doyle v. Superior Court (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1878, 1887. By asserting a causal link between her claimed psychological injuries and Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff has placed her mental condition in controversy.

Plaintiff argues that an examination should not be ordered in this case because she submitted to a previous medical examination in her workers’ compensation case. But Defendant has shown that the previous examination was by Plaintiff’s own treating physician. Also, the scope of a workers’ compensation examination and an examination in a civil proceeding may be different.

Plaintiff also argues that the list of tests and time frame should be clarified. This is not necessary. Defendant’s proposed medical examination includes generally standardized psychological testing and assessments, and the time limitations (10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on 10/15/14) are appropriate. Plaintiff’s request for more time to obtain a new attorney is irrelevant to her examination. Plaintiff has failed to show why an attorney or any other person needs be present at the examination.

The motion to compel an independent medical examination is granted. Defendant shall submit a proposed order that complies with §2032.320(d).