Case Number: SC119904    Hearing Date: August 04, 2014    Dept: 92

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

MINOO KOHANZADEH,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
TRADER JOE’S COMPANY, et al.,
Defendant(s).

Case No.: SC119904

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL IME; DENYING ALL REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS

Dept. 92
1:30 p.m. — #31
August 4, 2014

Defendant, Trader Joe’s Company’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s IME is Granted. The parties are ordered to meet and confer to choose a date and time for Plaintiff’s IME. The date should not be more than twenty days from today’s date. No sanctions are imposed.

Defendant, Trader Joe’s Company propounded a notice of IME on Plaintiff on 1/21/14. The notice included language indicating that, if Plaintiff needed an interpreter, she must give notice to Defendant of the need for an interpreter at least fifteen days prior to the IME. Plaintiff did not give notice to Defendant of this need. Plaintiff did, however, serve an objection to the IME, which stated that Plaintiff believes only plaintiff, her representative, the court report, the interpreter, and the doctor should be present at the time of the IME. Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant hired an interpreter for the IME. Plaintiff appeared at the IME with her son. Plaintiff also brought a caregiver to the IME. Because of the language barrier, the doctor terminated the IME and sent Plaintiff home.

At this time, Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff to attend the IME with an interpreter. Plaintiff opposes, arguing she fulfilled any and all obligations to attend the IME, and should not be required to sit for an IME a second time. Both parties seek sanctions. Notably, the parties attended an IME concerning this issue; the Court, at the time, advised the parties to go forward with the IME. The Court did not make any orders in this regard, and merely expressed its opinion that the IME would be ordered if a motion were made.

Evidence Code §755.5 makes clear that an interpreter must be present during any medical examination if the plaintiff does not proficiently speak and/or understand English. Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant cites any section of the Evidence Code or the Code of Civil Procedure that provides a specific mechanism for determining whether an interpreter is necessary, or concerning how notice of the need for an interpreter is to be given.

Defendant argues its notice of IME set forth a procedure through which an interpreter would be provided, and Plaintiff failed to comply with the procedure in the notice. Plaintiff argues her responses to interrogatories indicated she does not speak English, and she sat through her deposition with an interpreter, so Defendant was “on notice” that she needed an interpreter for the IME. Defendant was, of course, on notice that Plaintiff needed an interpreter; Defendant was not, however, on notice that Plaintiff expected Defendant to locate and provide an interpreter for the IME. Defendant would have been entirely reasonable to believe Plaintiff was bringing her own interpreter to the IME, since she did not respond in the manner set forth in the notice.

The motion to compel an IME is granted. An IME is an integral part of the discovery process, and Plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements in the notice of IME concerning an interpreter. Both parties’ requests for sanctions are denied. Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied because Defendant clearly knew Plaintiff needed an interpreter, and should have inquired about the need for an interpreter prior to the IME occurring. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied because she created the situation at hand by failing to properly respond to the notice of IME.

Dated this 4th day of August, 2014

Hon. Elia Weinbach
Judge of the Superior Court