Motion to Compel Physical Examination
ordered to file a responsive pleading to the First Amended Complaint within 15 days.
Motion to Deem Facts Admitted
This Motion has been withdrawn on July 30, 2026. ROA 253
The trial in this matter is currently set for August 28, 2026.
Moving Party Defendant to give notice of all of the above.
2. Nguyen vs. Ammari
24-01405008
Motion to Compel Physical Examination
Defendant Estate of Sam Ammari’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Kim Lieu Nguyen to submit to a second independent medical examination is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.320(a); see also Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 840 [good cause requires finding of relevancy and specific facts justifying the discovery sought].)
Defendant has failed to show good cause to permit a second physical examination of Plaintiff’s shoulder. There is no dispute that Plaintiff’s shoulder injuries are at issue in this litigation. However, Plaintiff has already submitted to a physical examination of her shoulder by Dr. Michael P. Weinstein. Dr. Weinstein conducted provocative testing on Plaintiff’s shoulder, including Neer’s impingement test, Hawkins impingement test, Speed’s test, and Crossed adduction test. Dr. Weinstein notes that the prior imaging of Plaintiff’s shoulder is of poor quality and that a new MRI of Plaintiff’s shoulder would be helpful in assessing her complaints.
Defendant now seeks to subject Plaintiff to a second physical examination by Dr. Theodore Gregorious. Dr. Gregorious is also an orthopedic surgeon, but he specializes in shoulder injuries. The scope of Dr. Gregorious’s proposed examination, however, is entirely duplicative of testing Dr. Weinstein had already conducted. The Court is unpersuaded there is good cause to subject Plaintiff to a second round of provocative testing of her shoulder. If Defendant believed it was necessary for a shoulder specialist to assess Plaintiff’s shoulder injury, Defendant should have had a doctor who does specializes in shoulder injuries conduct a physical examination, with provocative testing, of Plaintiff’s shoulder the first time.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied. Defendant had a reasonable basis to believe there was good cause to seek the second examination of Plaintiff’s shoulder.
Plaintiff shall provide notice of this ruling.
3. Larson vs. Lepak
22-01270567 1. Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories 2. Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories 3. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories 4. Motion to Compel Production 5. Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Admissions
Defendant David Lepak’s motions to compel plaintiff Samara Larson to respond to Form Interrogatories – Construction Litigation, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents, set one are GRANTED
To the extent Plaintiff Larson has not served verified responses, without objection, she shall do so by August 27, 2026.
Defendant Lepak is awarded sanctions against Larson in the total combined amount of $2,630.00, payable by August 27, 2026.
Defendant David Lepak’s motions to compel plaintiff Samara Larson to further respond to Requests for Admission, Set One, Numbers l through 35, and Form Interrogatory No. 326.1 from Form Interrogatories – Construction Litigation, Set Two is continued to September 11, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in Department C12.
Defendant Lepak has failed to comply with the dictates of Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010. Defendant Lepak has failed to meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by videoconference with Plaintiff Larson in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning discovery. Ca. Civ. Pro. § 2023.010. Written correspondence alone does not satisfy this requirement.
By August 27, 2026, the parties shall file a joint statement of items still in dispute. At that time, Defendant Lepak shall also file and serve a Separate Statement of items still in dispute.
Moving Party Lepak to give notice.