LORENA BELMAN VS. GARCIA AND GALLARZO PROPERTY H0LDINGS, LLC

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: VC065875    Hearing Date: September 22, 2020    Dept: G

BELMAN v. GARCIA AND GALLARZO PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC, et al.

CASE NO.:  VC065875

HEARING:  9/22/19

JUDGE: JOHN A. TORRIBIO

#11

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendants Los Bagres Corporation, Garcia & Gallarzo Property Holdings, LLC, and Garcia’s motion to reopen discovery to obtain an additional mental examination of Plaintiff is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to appear at Defendants’ next properly noticed mental examination.

Moving Parties to give NOTICE.

Defendants Los Bagres Corporation, Garcia & Gallarzo Property Holdings, LLC, and Garcia (“Garcia Defendants”) move to reopen discovery to compel an additional mental examination of Plaintiff Belman pursuant to CCP § 2032.310(b).

Any party may obtain discovery, subject to the restrictions set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2019.010), by means of a physical or mental examination of (1) a party to the action, (2) an agent of any party, or (3) a natural person in the custody or under the legal control of a party, in any action in which the mental or physical condition of that party or other person is in controversy in the action. (CCP § 2032.020(a).) A party shall obtain leave of court to obtain a mental examination. (CCP § 2032.310(a).)

Such motion “shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination, as well as the identity and the specialty, if any, of the person or persons who will perform the examination.” (CCP § 2032.310(b).) Upon a showing of good cause, an additional mental examination is allowed at this Court’s discretion. (Shapira v. Superior Court, (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1249, 1255-1256.)

Plaintiff alleges that she suffers from severe emotional distress and post traumatic stress disorder. As such, this court granted leave to conduct Plaintiff’s mental examination. However, Defendants’ expert, Dr. David Glaser, who previously conducted Plaintiff’s mental examination, recently died. (Ruiz Decl., ¶ 6.)

Therefore, the court finds good cause to compel an additional mental examination.

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that the instant request was made twice by Defendants, and were denied. However, those requests were made prior to Dr. Glaser’s death.

Plaintiff also objects to the request because Defendants signed a stipulation to designate Dr. Barbara Jean Justice as a replace Dr. David Glaser.

However, Defendants did not waive their right to seek an additional mental examination. The court finds that it is only reasonable to allow Dr. Justice to conduct an examination consistent with her professional practice and judgment.

Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to appear at Defendants’ next properly noticed mental examination.