Motion to compel attendance at neuropsychological independent medical examination
August 7, 2026, Civil Law & Motion Tentative Rulings
1. CL0001259 Thomas Deal v. Fred Gerkensmeyer, et al.
Plaintiff’s April 15, 2026, motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint, and April 14, 2026, motion regarding vexatious litigant orders, are removed from calendar without prejudice.
Plaintiff has failed to file any proof of service of the motion regarding vexatious litigant orders on the defense. Plaintiff has also failed to file an adequate proof of service establishing when and how the motion for leave to file an amended complaint was served on the defense and demonstrating that service was timely. See 7/23/26 Proof of Service.
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b), Plaintiff was required to file and serve a notice of motion and motion at least sixteen court days before the hearing. Moreover, the period of notice is extended by additional days depending on the method of service. See, e.g., Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1005, 1010.6(a)(3), 1013(a).
Any future motions shall be filed and served in compliance with all the requirements of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. CU0001927 Steven Fischer vs. McKenzie Fisher, et al
Defendants’ motion to compel attendance at neuropsychological independent medical examination (IME) by Plaintiff is granted, in part, subject to conditions set forth herein.
“[A] trial court is not required to order the production of test materials or test data [in connection with a physical or mental examination]. [G]iven the trial court's broad discretion in discovery matters, it retains the discretion to order the production of such materials.” Randy’s Trucking, Inc. v. Superior Court (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 818, 838, citing Carpenter v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 249, 261 and Roe v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 138, 147
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?”
At bar, Defendants have shown, and Plaintiff does not dispute, a legitimate need for the examination. The parties mainly contest whether Defendants shall be obligated to provide neurological data and materials to Plaintiff’s counsel. Plaintiff has shown a legitimate need for the raw data. The Court is not persuaded by Defendants’ arguments to the contrary. “Without the raw data and audio recording, plaintiff[] cannot effectively scrutinize the way the data was collected, determine if there are discrepancies, and cross-examine the neuropsychologist on the basis and reasons for the neuropsychologist's opinion.”
Randy's Trucking, Inc., 91 Cal. App. 5th at 838. Moreover, “disclosure of these materials may help to protect against abuse and disputes over what transpired during the examination.” Ibid. Such audiotaping will also ensure the examiner does not overstep bounds set by the court, provide the context of responses for purposes of trial, protect the examinee’s interests since the examinee’s counsel is usually not present, and assure any evidence of abuse can be presented to the court. Ibid. “Without plaintiff[’s] access to the audiotape and raw data, plaintiff[] cannot adequately protect these interests.”
Ibid. Plaintiff’s proposed protective order adequately addresses any confidentiality concerns and test security concerns of Defendants. In the exercise of its discretion, the Court orders production of the raw data to Plaintiff’s counsel subject to a protective order. The parties are ordered to meet and confer within five days of this order to finalize a date for the neurophysiological IME.
With respect to the specific diagnostic tests to be permitted, “the plain meaning of [Code of Civil Procedure] section 2032.320 is that the trial court must ‘specify the ... diagnostic tests and procedures’ of the ... examination by naming the tests and procedures to be performed.” Carpenter v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 249, 261–262. Accordingly, the order granting the examination shall specify the tests and procedures to be performed.
As for the audio recording of the examination, “since [Code of Civil Procedure] section 2032.530, subdivision (a) grants the examinee the right to record a mental examination by audio technology, it implies the examinee may retain a copy of the audio recording.” Randy's Trucking, Inc., 91 Cal.App.5th at 837. “Nothing in the applicable statute [related to audiotaping of examinations] suggests that the right of the examiner or examinee is limited to recording only selected parts of the examination. Further, recording only the examinee's responses would defeat the main purposes of the audiotaping ....” Golfland Entertainment Centers, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 739, 750. Accordingly, Defendants shall provide Plaintiff with a complete audio recording of the entire examination, including both the interview and testing portions.
Finally, production of the raw testing materials, audio recordings, and any reports of examination required under Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.610 shall be made directly to Plaintiff's counsel within thirty (30) days of the examination or fifteen (15) days before trial, whichever is earlier, subject to the protective order.
3. CU0002867 Jason Christ vs. Elizabeth Aroyan, et al.
Plaintiff Jason Christ’s motion for preliminary injunction as against Defendants Elizabeth Aroyan and Richard Milligan (aka ”F’kir Eldercake”) is denied.
“A preliminary injunction may be granted at any time before judgment upon a verified complaint, or upon affidavits if the complaint in the one case, or the affidavits in the other, show satisfactorily that sufficient grounds exist therefor.” Code Civ. Proc. § 527(a). “The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending final resolution upon a trial.” Grothe v. Cortlandt Corp. (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1316. Preliminary injunctive relief requires the use of competent evidence to create a sufficient factual showing on the grounds for relief. See, e.g., ReadyLink Healthcare v. Cotton (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016; Ancora- Citronelle Corp. v. Green (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 146, 150.
“The decision to grant a preliminary injunction rests in the sound discretion of the trial court .... [B]efore the trial court can exercise its discretion the applicant must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to injunctive relief. The applicant must demonstrate a real threat of immediate and irreparable injury.” Triple A Machine Shop, Inc. v. State of Cal. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 131, 138 (italics added). Before a trial court may issue a nonstatutory injunction as a provisional remedy, it must appear that monetary relief would not afford adequate relief or that it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the amount of damages.
Code Civ. Proc. § 526, subds. (a)(4) & (a)(5); Thayer Plymouth Center, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corp. (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 300, 306. “[A]n injunction is an unusual or extraordinary equitable remedy which will not be granted if the remedy at law (usually damages) will adequately compensate the injured plaintiff,” and the party seeking injunctive relief bears the burden to prove its absence. Department of Fish & Game v. 2