Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/30/2019 at 01:28:03 (UTC).

KATE SANCHEZ VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Case Summary

On 01/15/2016 KATE SANCHEZ filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7407

  • Filing Date:

    01/15/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Defendants and Respondents

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

DOES 1 TO 25

Guardian Ad Litem

SANCHEZ EBODIO

Minor

SANCHEZ KATE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant Attorney

PRECIADO ARTHUR C.

Minor Attorney

HARTING SIMKINS & RYAN LLP

 

Court Documents

Ex Parte Application

4/26/2019: Ex Parte Application

Minute Order

4/26/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

4/29/2019: Notice of Ruling

Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

11/8/2018: Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

Minute Order

1/15/2019: Minute Order

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

1/15/2016: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

NOTICE OF REJECTION - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

1/20/2016: NOTICE OF REJECTION - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

NOTICE OF REJECTION - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

1/28/2016: NOTICE OF REJECTION - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM - CIVIL

2/5/2016: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM - CIVIL

SUMMONS

2/10/2016: SUMMONS

Minute Order

6/30/2017: Minute Order

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS

10/17/2017: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

10/19/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

Minute Order

10/27/2017: Minute Order

DEFENDANT LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

11/15/2017: DEFENDANT LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

11/15/2017: DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

NOTICE OF OSC RE DEFAULT AND TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE

11/21/2017: NOTICE OF OSC RE DEFAULT AND TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE

Minute Order

12/5/2017: Minute Order

11 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/28/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2019
  • Notice of Ruling ( ON DEFENDANT?S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE, TRIAL AND TRIAL RELATED DEADLINES); Filed by Los Angeles Unified School District (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (for Order Continuing Final Status Conference, Trial, and Trial Related Deadlines) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (for Order Continuing Final Status Conference, Trial, and Trial Related Deadlines); Filed by Los Angeles Unified School District (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application for Order Continuing Final St...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2019
  • Motion to Compel (DEFENDANT LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO REQUIRE PLAINTIFF, KATE SANCHEZ, TO PARTICIPATE IN A DEFENSE MENTAL EXAMINATION; SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; SUPPORTING DECLARATIONS OF ARTHUR JAVIER AND); Filed by Los Angeles Unified School District (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2019
  • Minute Order ((Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2018
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
30 More Docket Entries
  • 02/05/2016
  • Application ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2016
  • APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM - CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2016
  • NOTICE OF REJECTION - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/26/2016
  • APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/26/2016
  • Application ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/20/2016
  • NOTICE OF REJECTION - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2016
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2016
  • Application ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2016
  • APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC607407    Hearing Date: March 12, 2021    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

KATE SANCHEZ,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC607407

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED ANSWER

Dept. 31

8:30 p.m.

March 12, 2021

  1. Background Facts

    Plaintiff, Kate Sanchez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant, Los Angeles Unified School District (“Defendant”) for damages arising out of an injury Plaintiff sustained in her physical education class.

    At this time, Defendant seeks leave to file a First Amended Answer to assert defenses under the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (“MICRA”).

  2. Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

    Defendant seeks leave to file a First Amended Answer (“FAA”) to include defenses under MICRA. Defendant contends allowing leave to amend will not delay prosecution of the case, require additional discovery, or otherwise significantly impact the evidence to be presented at trial. Defendant argues that because Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s school nurse failed to provide competent and timely medical care, so the defenses Defendant seeks to add relate to Plaintiff’s claims. Defendant contends the additional defenses are relevant and do not implicate new factual issues but rather are being asserted to clarify the issues in this case. Defendant contends there will be no prejudice to Plaintiff by allowing the amendments, and there was no delay in Defendant’s bringing the motion.

    In opposition, Plaintiff argues Plaintiff will be prejudiced if the motion is granted because Plaintiff has no ability to conduct discovery now that fact discovery is closed in this matter, and the amendment constitutes unfair surprise on the eve of trial. Plaintiff further argues the proposed affirmative defenses do not apply to this action, are likely not affirmative defenses at all, and there is no reason for the delay in bringing the motion.

    Defendant, in reply, argues Plaintiff’s complaint alleges Defendant’s school nurse failed to render appropriate medical care so the application of MICRA is at issue. Defendant argues additional fact discovery is unnecessary, and Plaintiff has already designated a nursing expert.

    CCP § 473(a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.”

    “This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.) Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature. The court, however, does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment. (See California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281, overruled on other grounds by Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390.)

    Under CRC Rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend a pleading shall (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) state what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.

    Under CRC Rule 3.1324(b), a separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

    Even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, a long, unwarranted and unexcused delay in presenting it may be a good reason for denial. In most cases, the factors for timeliness are: (1) lack of diligence in discovering the facts or in offering the amendment after knowledge of them; and (2) the effect of the delay on the adverse party. If the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the judge has discretion to deny leave to amend. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.) Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation such as an increased burden of discovery. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.)

    Here, Defendant moves for leave to file a FAA to add affirmative defenses concerning MICRA. However, as Defendant admits in its moving papers, the MICRA defenses are not affirmative defenses. These affirmative defenses are not in the style of “yes, the allegations are true, but,” as is required to state an affirmative defense. (See FPI Development, Inc., 231 Cal.App.3d at 383; see also Walsh v. West Valley Mission Community College Dist. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1546 [Where, however, the answer sets forth facts showing some essential allegation of the complaint is not true, such facts are not ‘new matter,’ but only a [denial].”].) These issues are properly joined by Defendant’s general denial and not appropriately pleaded as affirmative defenses. (Alpha Mechanical, Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America (2005) 133 Cal. App. 4th 1319, 1330; see LL B Sheet 1, LLC v. Loskutoff (2019) 362 F.Supp. 3d 804, 818 [“[f]ailure to state a claim is not a proper affirmative defense but, rather, asserts a defect in [the plaintiff's] prima facie case.”].) Defendant’s general denial puts all elements of Plaintiffs’ claims at issue, including damages.

    While a court will ordinarily not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in deciding whether to grant leave to amend, it undoubtedly has discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action or defense. (California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (Gorgei) (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280-281(disapproved on other grounds in Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390, 407.) Such a denial is “most appropriate” where the pleading is deficient as a matter of law and the defect could not be cured by further appropriate amendment. (California Casualty General Ins. Co., supra, 173 Cal.App.3d at 281; Foxborough v. Van Atta (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 217, 230.) For example, leave to amend was properly rejected where proposed amendments were untimely and also subject to demurrer as being barred by res judicata and the statute of limitations. (Yee v. Mobilehome Park Rental Review Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1429.) As Defendant itself admits, the FAA does not assert valid defenses. (See Taylor v. U.S. (1987) 821 F.2d 1428, 1433 [“Section 3333.2 is a limitation of liability, not an affirmative defense… § 3333.2 limits, but does not bar recovery for noneconomic damages.”].)

    Because the FAA fails to state a valid affirmative defense, Defendant’s motion for leave to amend is denied.

    Defendant is ordered to give notice.

    Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.orgIf the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

    Dated this 12th day of March, 2021

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC607407    Hearing Date: March 8, 2021    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

KATE SANCHEZ,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC607407

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED ANSWER

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

March 8, 2021

  1. Background Facts

    Plaintiff, Kate Sanchez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant, Los Angeles Unified School District (“Defendant”) for damages arising out of an injury Plaintiff sustained in her physical education class.

    At this time, Defendant seeks leave to file a First Amended Answer to assert defenses under the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (“MICRA”).

  2. Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

    Defendant seeks leave to file a First Amended Answer (“FAA”) to include defenses under MICRA. Defendant contends allowing leave to amend will not delay prosecution of the case, require additional discovery, or otherwise significantly impact the evidence to be presented at trial. Defendant argues that because Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s school nurse failed to provide competent and timely medical care, so the defenses Defendant seeks to add relate to Plaintiff’s claims. Defendant contends the additional defenses are relevant and do not implicate new factual issues but rather are being asserted to clarify the issues in this case. Defendant contends there will be no prejudice to Plaintiff by allowing the amendments, and there was no delay in Defendant’s bringing the motion.

    In opposition, Plaintiff argues Plaintiff will be prejudiced if the motion is granted because Plaintiff has no ability to conduct discovery now that fact discovery is closed in this matter, and the amendment constitutes unfair surprise on the eve of trial. Plaintiff further argues the proposed affirmative defenses do not apply to this action, are likely not affirmative defenses at all, and there is no reason for the delay in bringing the motion.

    Defendant, in reply, argues Plaintiff’s complaint alleges Defendant’s school nurse failed to render appropriate medical care so the application of MICRA is at issue. Defendant argues additional fact discovery is unnecessary, and Plaintiff has already designated a nursing expert.

    CCP § 473(a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.”

    “This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.) Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature. The court, however, does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment. (See California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281, overruled on other grounds by Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390.)

    Under CRC Rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend a pleading shall (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) state what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.

    Under CRC Rule 3.1324(b), a separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

    Even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, a long, unwarranted and unexcused delay in presenting it may be a good reason for denial. In most cases, the factors for timeliness are: (1) lack of diligence in discovering the facts or in offering the amendment after knowledge of them; and (2) the effect of the delay on the adverse party. If the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the judge has discretion to deny leave to amend. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.) Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation such as an increased burden of discovery. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.)

    Here, Defendant moves for leave to file a FAA to add affirmative defenses concerning MICRA. However, as Defendant admits in its moving papers, the MICRA defenses are not affirmative defenses. These affirmative defenses are not in the style of “yes, the allegations are true, but,” as is required to state an affirmative defense. (See FPI Development, Inc., 231 Cal.App.3d at 383; see also Walsh v. West Valley Mission Community College Dist. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1546 [Where, however, the answer sets forth facts showing some essential allegation of the complaint is not true, such facts are not ‘new matter,’ but only a [denial].”].) These issues are properly joined by Defendant’s general denial and not appropriately pleaded as affirmative defenses. (Alpha Mechanical, Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America (2005) 133 Cal. App. 4th 1319, 1330; see LL B Sheet 1, LLC v. Loskutoff (2019) 362 F.Supp. 3d 804, 818 [“[f]ailure to state a claim is not a proper affirmative defense but, rather, asserts a defect in [the plaintiff's] prima facie case.”].) Defendant’s general denial puts all elements of Plaintiffs’ claims at issue, including damages.

    While a court will ordinarily not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in deciding whether to grant leave to amend, it undoubtedly has discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action or defense. (California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (Gorgei) (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280-281(disapproved on other grounds in Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390, 407.) Such a denial is “most appropriate” where the pleading is deficient as a matter of law and the defect could not be cured by further appropriate amendment. (California Casualty General Ins. Co., supra, 173 Cal.App.3d at 281; Foxborough v. Van Atta (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 217, 230.) For example, leave to amend was properly rejected where proposed amendments were untimely and also subject to demurrer as being barred by res judicata and the statute of limitations. (Yee v. Mobilehome Park Rental Review Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1429.) As Defendant itself admits, the FAA does not assert valid defenses.

    Because the FAA fails to state a valid affirmative defense, Defendant’s motion for leave to amend is denied.

    Defendant is ordered to give notice.

    Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.orgIf the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

    Dated this 8th day of March, 2021

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC607407    Hearing Date: November 08, 2019    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

KATE SANCHEZ, ETC.,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST., ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: BC607407

[TENTATIVE] ORDER

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

November 8, 2019

1. Background Facts

Plaintiff, Kate Sanchez, a minor by and through her GAL, Ebodio Sanchez, filed this action against Defendant, LAUSD for damages arising out of an incident that occurred during PE class. Plaintiff was found unconscious on the black top during class. As a result of the incident, she suffers from headaches, memory issues, forgetfulness, sleeping disturbance, emotional issues, and continuous headaches. She also suffers from parenchymal atrophy, which could continue to impair her cognitive functioning over time and/or lead to premature death.

2. 6/14/19 Motion to Compel IME

On 6/14/19, the Court heard and considered Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to sit for an IME with a mental health examiner. The Court held that Plaintiff must do so, and found the examination must be limited to eight hours, Plaintiff’s mother could observe the examination through a window, and the raw date from the IME must be turned over to Plaintiff’s attorney at the conclusion of the examination.

3. Renewed Motion to Compel IME

At this time, Defendant renews its motion to compel IME, contending Counsel, after communicating with a number of providers, cannot find one who is willing to agree to the terms of the examination required by the Court in the 6/14/19 order.

The parties have resolved all issues relating to the raw data at this time. The sole issue remaining is whether Plaintiff’s mother can view the examination through a window. Defendant contends it cannot find an examiner who will agree to this condition. Plaintiff contends the Court specifically indicated, at the prior hearing on the motion, that it would not reconsider this issue.

The Court wishes to hear from Counsel for Defendant, at the hearing, concerning the nature of the examiners’ concerns about having Plaintiff’s mother view the examination through a window. Could a one-way window be used, so Plaintiff’s mother can see Plaintiff but Plaintiff cannot see her mother? Could Plaintiff face away from her mother during the examination? The Court does not wish to impede the examination, but also wishes to protect the minor child from a painful experience at examination. Counsel for both sides must be personally present at the hearing to discuss reasonable alternatives to ensure the examination can go forward.