Nguyen vs. Lim

planned to rely on Sodexo’s experts’ testimony at trial. However, Defendant does not offer any information as to when exactly did Rendon decided differently and why at that point did Rendon not seek out its own experts.

Waiting to serve notice of the instant IME until 3/10/26 shows a lack of diligence in defending against Plaintiff’s claims. (Rice Decl., ¶ 2.)

With respect to the merits of Defendant’s request for leave to conduct its IME, the Court finds good cause to be lacking.

As noted above, Rendon already conducted a mental examination of Plaintiff through its then-expert at the time, Dr. Lavid.

Therefore, Rendon’s statement that it “has not yet exercised his right to an IME,” is not accurate. (Motion at pg. 9.) Furthermore, Rendon’s suggestion that it “can take an IME under Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.220(a) as a matter of right,” is also wrong.

Only in a personal injury case can a defendant compel a plaintiff to submit to a physical exam (not a mental exam) without a court order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.)

Leave of Court is required for a mental examination, and good cause must be shown. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310(a); 2032.320(a).)

Plaintiff argues that there is good cause because Plaintiff’s expert Dr. Williamson criticized Dr. Lavin’s examination. (Rice Decl.., ¶¶ 7, 9, Ex. G, pp. 34:10-38:20; 39:12-40:1.) The disagreement between experts on proper methodology does not constitute good cause.

Accordingly, Defendant Rendon’s motion is denied.

Plaintiff shall give notice.

11 Nguyen vs. Lim

2023-01335514 Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record

Off Calendar as moot. Substitution of Attorney filed. 12 Nour vs. Al- Khanji

2024-01373153 Motions to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record

On the motions of the Law Offices of Mark Martinez, by Mark Martinez, counsel of record for defendants (1) Mark El Khanji and (2) Zeina Sous for orders relieving it as counsel for each of Defendants, there are no proofs of service on plaintiff Hansaa Noor in the file.