Case Number: BC656808 Hearing Date: June 12, 2019 Dept: 2

Defendant’ Amended Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Attend Court Ordered Psychiatric Examination, Evaluation, and Testing, filed on 5/17/19, is DENIED. Defendant has not shown good cause to warrant an examination of Plaintiff by a psychiatrist, where Plaintiff is not alleging psychiatric injury.

Defendant is entitled to obtain discovery by means of a physical or mental examination. Cal. Code Civil Procedure § 2032.020.

Mental examinations and those exams other than that described under Section 2032.220 require leave of court and are governed by Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2032.310.Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.310(a).

Defendant is entitled to more than one examination upon a showing of good cause. Shapira v. Superior Court (1990) 224 Cal. App. 3d 1249, 1250.

“Good cause” is established where there are specific facts justifying discovery and the inquiry is 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.

Defendant states Plaintiff testified at deposition that she treated with a psychologist. Motion, 9:25-26. This does not justify examination by a psychiatrist. Defendant admits that Plaintiff confirmed that she is not claiming psychiatric injuries. Motion, 11:24-25.

Plaintiff’s designation of an expert psychologist does not warrant examination by a psychiatrist. Motion, 11;26-27.

Defendant then argues that Plaintiff testified at her deposition that she treated with a psychiatrist in 2016. Motion 12:11-13. Defendant has not submitted the deposition testimony to provide the court with a factual showing that Plaintiff is alleging a psychiatric injury arising from this accident.

Mental examination is proper where the mental distress is alleged to be ongoing. Acua v. Regents of the Univ. Of California (1997) 56 Cal. App. 4th 639, 654.

Plaintiff has already conceded that Defendant is entitled to a neuropsychological examination. Opposition, 3:11-12. Among the battery of potential tests to be performed, Plaintiff will undergo the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, a psychological interview, and a clinical interview. Opposition Ex. 4, 2:17.

The proposed psychiatric examination will also include psychological testing, performance of the MMPI, and psychological testing in addition to a psychiatric interview. Motion Ex. B, 2:16-20.

The proposed psychiatric examination is duplicative, burdensome, and unwarranted given Plaintiff is not asserting an ongoing psychiatric injury arising from this incident.

Sanctions

Plaintiff is entitled to an award of sanctions, in the amount of $2,250 (9 hours and $575/hour fee is reduced to $250), against Defendant and its counsel, Edward O’Connor of the Law Offices of Wolf, O’Connor & Meyers. It is a misuse of the discovery process to make a motion without substantial justification and failing to meet and confer in good faith. Cal. Code Civil Procedure § 2023.010 (h), (i). Such sanctions are payable within thirty (30) days.

Defendant acknowledged in its Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Attend Neuropsychological Evaluation that “[s]ince Plaintiff has now finally and in writing affirmed that she will not be claiming psychiatric injuries, Defendant now seeks an Order only compelling Plaintiff to comply with a neuropsychological examination.” Opposition, Ex 9. 10:20-23. Therefore, there was no purpose in demanding an examination to which Defendant acknowledged it was not entitled.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.