DOE vs RACHANDEEP SINGH, M.D., et al.

23CV007225: DOE vs RACHANDEEP SINGH, M.D., et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Compelling Mental Examination of Plaintiff Jane Doe in Department 16C

Tentative Ruling

Defendants Rachandeep Singh, M.D. (“Singh”) and Access Physician, Inc.’s (“API”) (collectively, “Defendants”) motion for leave to obtain discovery is ruled upon as follows.

Overview

This action arises out of an alleged sexual assault that occurred on April 26, 2023. Plaintiff Jane Doe (“Plaintiff”) was a nursing student employed by RiverPointe, a skilled nursing facility. Singh served as RiverPointe’s medical director. API is a medical corporation owned and operated by Singh. Plaintiff alleges that API served as Singh’s employer, with RiverPointe retaining Singh’s services through an independent contractor agreement with API. Plaintiff alleges causes of action for (1) assault, (2) sexual battery, (3) battery, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (5) sexual harassment, (6) negligent hiring and negligent supervision, and (7) sex discrimination.

Plaintiff’s duties at RiverPointe included assisting Singh and other physicians with patient care. Plaintiff alleges that on the date of the assault, she had just returned to work from vacation in Mexico and was experiencing abdominal pain and nausea. Singh offered to prescribe Plaintiff an antibiotic but stated that he needed to physically examine her first. During the examination, Singh allegedly began to grope Plaintiff’s breasts and attempted to have sexual intercourse with Plaintiff. Plaintiff pushed Singh away and escaped to a nearby closet.

On or about July 1, 2026, Defendants served Plaintiff with a Notice of Independent Mental Health Examination to be conducted by Dr. John M. Greene, M.D. on September 4, 2026 (“Notice”). The Notice stated that the examination would consist of two parts:

1) An oral examination, including: a) Taking a complete history (Family History, Educational History, Social History, Past Medical History, Past Psychological/Psychiatric History, Employment History, Legal History, History of the Incident, Subsequent Clinical Course and Psychological/Psychiatric Treatment); and

b) An oral mental status examination (specific questions to assess mental functioning, mood, affect, capacity for abstraction, judgment, etc.).

2) The administration of three psychological test instruments: a. The MMPI-3 (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory – 3); b. The MCMI-IV (Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory – IV); and c. The Rotter Incomplete Sentence Blank

23CV007225: DOE vs RACHANDEEP SINGH, M.D., et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Compelling Mental Examination of Plaintiff Jane Doe in Department 16C

The examiner may as part of the oral examination, solicit information from plaintiff related to her prior history of sexual assault and any impact the subject alleged incident had on her sexual intimacy with others without resort to the filing of a motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.220. Estimated time for the Comprehensive Psychiatric Examination (IME) is 5 – 7 hours: 3-4 hours for the oral examination, and 2-3 hours for the psychological testing – depending on the examinee’s pace.

(Declaration of Faith Wolinsky (“Wolinsky Decl.”), Ex. K.)

Defendants move for an order compelling Plaintiff to submit to the forensic psychiatric evaluation conducted by Dr. John Greene. While Plaintiff has agreed to participate in the examination, she has demanded limitations on the scope, duration, and conditions of the examination. Specifically, Plaintiff maintains that Dr. Greene should not be permitted to ask invasive questions regarding Plaintiff’s sexual history, childhood sexual abuse, purported sexual misconduct by Plaintiff’s ex-boyfriend William Sepulveda, her entire medical history, her entire employment history, and her educational history. Plaintiff also asks that the Court impose a 4-to- 5-hour limit on the entire examination.

On August 28, 2026, the trial set for October 20, 2026 was continued. The parties were referred to the trial setting process for selection of a new trial date. (Minute Order, 8/28/2026.)

Legal Standard

Civil discovery by physical and mental examination is governed by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2032.010 through 2032.650.[1] (Carpenter v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 249, 258-59.) “As a general matter, a defendant may obtain a physical or mental examination of the plaintiff, in accordance with those provisions, if the plaintiff has placed his or her physical or mental condition in controversy.” (Id., citing Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2032.020, subd. (a), 2032.310.)

Section 2032.220, subdivision (a) allows:

In any case in which a plaintiff is seeking recovery for personal injuries, any defendant may demand one physical examination of the plaintiff, if both of the following conditions are satisfied:

(1) The examination does not include any diagnostic test or procedure that is painful, protracted, or intrusive.

(2) The examination is conducted at a location within 75 miles of the residence of

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007225: DOE vs RACHANDEEP SINGH, M.D., et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Compelling Mental Examination of Plaintiff Jane Doe in Department 16C

the examinee.

Pursuant to Section 2032.310, subdivision (a), “[i]f any party desires to obtain discovery by a physical examination other than that described in Article 2 (commencing with Section 2032.210), or by a mental examination, the party shall obtain leave of court.” The motion must state the time, place, identity and specialty of the examiner, and the “manner, conditions, scope and nature of the examination.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.310, subd. (b).) The court shall grant a motion for a mental examination under section 2032.310 “only for good cause shown.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.320, subd. (a).) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.310, subd. (b).)

“An order granting a physical or mental examination shall specify the person or persons who may perform the examination, as well as the time, place, manner, diagnostic tests and procedures, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.320, subd. (d).)

Section 2017.220(a) provides:

In any civil action alleging conduct that constitutes sexual harassment, sexual assault, or sexual battery, any party seeking discovery concerning the plaintiff’s sexual conduct with individuals other than the alleged perpetrator shall establish specific facts showing that there is good cause for that discovery, and that the matter sought to be discovered is relevant to the subject matter of the action and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This showing shall be made by a noticed motion, accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, and shall not be made or considered by the court at an ex parte hearing.

(Code of Civ. Proc. § 2017.220(a).)

“The mere fact that a plaintiff has initiated an action seeking damages for extreme mental and emotional distress arising out of conduct of a sexual nature does not ipso facto provide ‘good cause’ for discovery of other sexual conduct. [Citation.] The issue is resolved by balancing the right of privacy with the defendant’s right to discovery.” (Barrenda L. v. Superior Court (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 794, 801.) Section 2017.220(a) “provides the necessary balancing procedure.” (Ibid.) A party seeking to obtain discovery on a plaintiff’s prior sexual activity in relation to emotional distress damages must “produce specific factual evidence to demonstrate that emotional distress resulting from this other sexual activity, if any, was directly related to injuries claimed in this litigation.” (Id. at 802 (italics in original).)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007225: DOE vs RACHANDEEP SINGH, M.D., et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Compelling Mental Examination of Plaintiff Jane Doe in Department 16C

“‘[S]pecific facts showing good cause’ must be interpreted as requiring factual assertions demonstrating a compelling public need for the disclosure -- that the requested discovery is essential to a fair resolution of the case.” (Mendez v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 557, 567, overruled in part by Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557 only to the extent it required the party seeking discovery of private information to always establish a compelling interest or compelling need.) Additionally, “‘[i]t is essential that the compelled disclosure be narrowly drawn to assure maximum protection of the constitutional interests at stake.’” (Ibid. (citation omitted).)

Defective Notice

Plaintiff objects on the ground that Defendants did not provide sufficient notice of the motion. Defendants electronically served the motion. With a September 1, 2026, hearing date, Defendants were required to serve the motion no later than August 6, 2026. Defendants served the motion on August 7, 2026. Plaintiff claims that her due process rights have been violated and that she has been prejudiced by having less time to oppose the motion.

Regardless of the foregoing service defect, and the service objections raised by Plaintiff, Plaintiff has also filed a substantive opposition and there does not appear to be any prejudice suffered. Thus, any issue of insufficient notice is waived. (Carlton v. Quint (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 690, 697 [opposing a motion on the merits waives any defects or irregularities in the notice of motion, even if no notice was given at all].)

Defendants’ Prior Motion for Leave to Obtain Discovery Pursuant to Section 2017.220

This is Defendants’ second motion in connection with discovery regarding Plaintiff’s prior history of sexual assault -- much of which is based on the same evidence.

In her responses to discovery, Plaintiff responded that she attributes the following injuries to Singh’s alleged assault:

Emotional distress and mental anguish. Humiliation. Anxiety. Depression. Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder. Self-worth taken away. Flashbacks and nightmares of the assault and sexual battery. Defendant Singh’s face haunts Plaintiff. Insomnia and difficulty sleeping. Relationships were broken and harmed, and it is difficult to speak to people. Some people have stopped talking to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is under so much stress that it is impacting her body and health. Plaintiff was making good progress in her life and was graduating with her nursing degree. The assault and sexual battery has turned Plaintiff’s world upside down.

(Wolinsky Decl., Ex. B, Response to FROG 6.2.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007225: DOE vs RACHANDEEP SINGH, M.D., et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Compelling Mental Examination of Plaintiff Jane Doe in Department 16C

She also responded that she still has complaints which she attributes to the assault and “[t]he symptoms of emotional distress and mental harm remain the same and happen very often. Plaintiff has had to find ways to distract herself, calm herself, and practice mindfulness to deal with the constant stress and anxiety.” (Id., Response to FROG 6.3.)

She further responded that prior to the alleged assault, she did not have complaints or injuries that involved the same part of her body claimed to have been injured in the alleged assault, and that she had no physical, mental, and emotional disabilities immediately before the alleged assault. (Id., Response to FROGs 10.1-10.2.) She also responded that she did not have the same complaints or injuries after the assault. (Id., Response to FROG 10.3.)

Defendants provide evidence in the form of Plaintiff’s medical records. For example, on March 25, 2021, her medical record noted that Plaintiff:

found out in the last 1 or 2 years about history of sexual abuse that it [sic] occurred while she was in foster care age 2 through 7. She did not recall any specific details but occasionally had vague dreams or feelings related to that so it made a lot of sense when she read about it in her report. Has not done any counseling regarding that as an adult since she found out.

(Id., Ex. C., p. 00005.)

The notes indicate that Plaintiff was open to talking to a therapist – “hopefully one trained in trauma.” (Id., Ex. C., p. 00006.) Plaintiff was given a referral for “counseling – PTSD, sexual abuse in foster care aged 2-7?” (Ibid.)

On August 30, 2021, her healthcare provider noted, “I really wanted her to start seeing a therapist for what I suspect is some PTSD related to childhood sexual abuse.” (Id., at p. 00008.)

Also, on February 23, 2023, Plaintiff requested a referral to behavioral health, noting that although she “[n]ever had therapy she feels she has anxiety and depression.” (Id., at p. 00013.) On March 21, 2023, Plaintiff reported stressors including “domestic violence exposure, separation from primary care givers, physical abuse, sexual abuse, partner relationship, identity, family / parenting and emotional abuse.” (Id., at p. 00020.) She also reported two prior psychiatric hospitalizations, and a history of childhood sexual abuse and trauma in past relationship with her ex-boyfriend. (Id., at p. 00019.) Plaintiff’s PHQ-9 score was 11 evidencing moderate depression and her GAD-7 was 15 evidencing severe anxiety. (Id., at p. 00021.) Plaintiff further reported a “hx of SI and SA at age 15 and that she attempted to overdose. Pt denied current SI/SA/SH/HI.” (Id., at p. 00019.)[2]

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007225: DOE vs RACHANDEEP SINGH, M.D., et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Compelling Mental Examination of Plaintiff Jane Doe in Department 16C

Plaintiff told her co-workers that she had been the victim of sexual assault on two previous occasions. (Id., Ex. D.) She also informed law enforcement immediately after the alleged incident that she had been previously sexually assaulted twice. (Id., Ex. E.) She informed the responding officers that due to her past history of sexual assault she did not like to be touched and had experienced discomfort in the past with medical examinations. (Id., Ex. F at p. 219.)

Given this evidence, the Court granted Defendants’ motion but only with respect to discovery related to the two prior sexual assaults that she had disclosed to her co-workers and law enforcement, and related damages. (Order re: Ruling on Submitted Matter, May 8, 2025.)[3] The Court noted, however, that “this order shall not be construed as condoning any specific deposition questions, interrogatories, request for production, request for admissions, document subpoenas, or questions posed by the IME. The Court reminds Defendants that the requested discovery must be ‘narrowly drawn to assure maximum protection of the constitutional interests at stake,’ . . . and Plaintiff remains free to make specific objections to any particular discovery that is sought.” (Ibid.)

Additional Evidence

Defendants took Plaintiff’s deposition after the Court granted their Section 2017.220 motion. Plaintiff denied having a history of childhood sexual abuse, or knowledge thereof. (Wolinsky Decl., Ex. H, pp. 310:16-315:11.)

Defendants’ investigator, Christopher Mouzis, interviewed Malia Gray and Damea Wells, Plaintiff’s former roommates. Mr. Mouzis indicates that Ms. Gray disclosed that the Sheriff’s Department had responded to their apartment on a minimum of two occasions for domestic disputes involving Plaintiff and William Sepulveda. Mr. Mouzis states that “[o]n one occasion, Ms. Gray witnessed Jane Doe on the phone with law enforcement falsely reporting that Mr. Sepulveda was purportedly physically assaulting her.

Ms. Gray stated the report made by Jane Doe to law enforcement was untrue. Malia Gray was present during the entire altercation and Mr. Sepulveda never physically assaulted Jane Doe.” (Wolinsky Decl., Ex. O, ¶ 6.) Ms. Wells told Mr. Mouzis that she witnessed several domestic disputes between Plaintiff and Mr. Sepulveda, the majority of which were instigated by Plaintiff. (Id., ¶ 8.) Ms. Wells explained that in 2019, Plaintiff called law enforcement and reported that she was being assaulted by Mr.

Sepulveda. During the call, Plaintiff falsely reported that she was unable to flee from the apartment. (Ibid.) On another occasion, Plaintiff falsely accused Mr. Sepulveda of raping her when she was inebriated following a night of heavy drinking. (Ibid.)

Defendants also include April 22, 2025 progress notes from a therapy session in which it was indicated that Plaintiff was “coming from abuse and trauma and think[s] that is normal and now realized it’s not normal. Grew up with a lot of abuse. Always paranoid and has fear. Has trauma now and scared to be with a male patient.” (Id., Ex. C, p. 29.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007225: DOE vs RACHANDEEP SINGH, M.D., et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Compelling Mental Examination of Plaintiff Jane Doe in Department 16C

Scope of Examination

Questions Regarding Sexual History

Plaintiff does not oppose questioning on the two prior sexual assaults that she had disclosed to her co-workers and law enforcement that was previously ruled upon. To the extent Dr. Greene’s questions regarding “social history” encompasses Plaintiff’s sexual history, Plaintiff “is concerned that such questioning could severely impact Plaintiff’s privacy rights and cause unnecessary embarrassment.” (Opposition, 4:23-24.) Plaintiff explains that:

[t]he IME Notice should make clear that permission to question Plaintiff about her “social history” and “intimacy” does not give Dr. Greene free reign to ask Plaintiff specific questions about her sex life. For instance, the IME notice should make clear that the scope of the examination does not encompass questions aimed to identify specific people that Plaintiff has had sexual intercourse with, questions about how many people Plaintiff has had sexual intercourse with, questions about the specific types of sexual acts Plaintiff engaged in, and questions about which sexual preferences (if any) were affected by the sexual assault.

Plaintiff will accept questions about how Dr. Singh’s assault has affected Plaintiff’s dating relationships and intimacy in general. However, Plaintiff asks the Court to follow the holding in Vinson and “circumscribe [the oral examination’s] scope to exclude any probing into her sexual history, habits, or practices,” which would interfere with her privacy rights. (Vinson, supra, 43 Cal.3d, at p. 841.)

(Opposition, 4:25-5:6.)

In reply, Defendants explain that there is no disagreement on this topic because:

The parties agree that Dr. Greene may ask Plaintiff questions “about the two prior instances of sexual misconduct that this Court previously ruled on.” (See Plaintiff’s Opposition at 4:17-21). The parties likewise agree that Dr. Greene may question Plaintiff “about how Dr. Singh’s [alleged] assault has affected Plaintiff’s dating relationships and intimacy in general.” (See Plaintiff’s Opposition at 5:3- 4).

Plaintiff has objected to “questions aimed to identify specific people that Plaintiff has had sexual intercourse with, questions about how many people Plaintiff has had sexual intercourse with, questions about the specific types of sexual acts Plaintiff engaged in, and questions about which sexual preferences (if any) were affected by the [alleged] sexual assault.” (See Plaintiff’s Opposition at 4:27-5:3).

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007225: DOE vs RACHANDEEP SINGH, M.D., et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Compelling Mental Examination of Plaintiff Jane Doe in Department 16C

Plaintiff never raised these concerns during meet-and-confer discussions. Had her counsel done so, they would have been agreed to. The IME will not consist of such questions.

(Reply, 3:14-20 (underline in original).)

As such, Dr. Greene may ask Plaintiff questions regarding the two prior sexual assaults and the resulting damages, and how Singh’s assault affected her dating relationships and intimacy in general.

Questions Regarding Childhood Sexual Abuse

Defendants’ scope of examination also appears to include questions regarding childhood sexual abuse. Dr. Greene notes that on March 25, 2021, Plaintiff “was assessed as having PTSD and was open to speaking with a trauma specialist.” (Dr. Greene Decl., ¶ 7.)

Plaintiff insists that Dr. Greene should not be permitted to ask questions about this topic because nothing in Plaintiff’s medical records show that she was ever treated for, or diagnosed with PTSD prior to Singh’s alleged assault or that the abuse was ever confirmed. Plaintiff further observes that she testified at her deposition that she has no history of sexual abuse from when she was in foster care, and never received counseling for any suspected abuse. As a result, Plaintiff advances that “good cause does not exist to question Plaintiff about an unrelated incident of suspected and unconfirmed childhood abuse from two decades ago for which Plaintiff was never treated nor diagnosed.

Because Defendants seek to ask questions about constitutionally protected matter, Defendants have the burden of establishing there is a nexus between the emotional distress Plaintiff is claiming in this lawsuit and the emotional distress alleged to have arisen from an unconfirmed incident from when Plaintiff was 7 years old.” (Opposition, 6:16-21 (italics in original).)

In reply, Defendants affirm that Dr. Greene will not ask Plaintiff questions regarding the factual circumstances of any childhood sexual assault, but he should be permitted to pose questions regarding the impact that the revelation of her possibly being a victim of childhood sexual abuse had on her emotional well-being.

While Plaintiff claims that she has not been “treated nor diagnosed” with PTSD, there are multiple references to Plaintiff having PTSD, and Plaintiff’s medical records show that she “occasionally had vague dreams or feelings related to that so it made a lot of sense when she read about it in her report.” (Wolinsky Decl., Ex. C, p. 00005.) The sexual abuse concerned Plaintiff enough that she was open to talking to a therapist trained in trauma. (Ibid.) Plaintiff also reported stressors including sexual abuse, (Id., at p. 00020), and that she had two prior psychiatric hospitalizations, and a history of childhood sexual abuse. (Id., at p. 00019.) The Court finds that

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007225: DOE vs RACHANDEEP SINGH, M.D., et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Compelling Mental Examination of Plaintiff Jane Doe in Department 16C

Defendants have shown good cause for Dr. Greene to question Plaintiff about the impact that the revelation of her possibly being a victim of childhood sexual abuse had on her emotional wellbeing.

Sexual Misconduct by William Sepulveda

Defendants’ scope of examination also appears to include questions regarding Plaintiff’s relationship with Mr. Sepulveda.

Plaintiff contends that Dr. Greene should not be allowed to question her regarding Mr. Sepulveda’s alleged rape because the evidence is triple hearsay, and that Plaintiff admitted that Mr. Sepulveda never raped her.

In reply, Defendants indicate that Plaintiff misunderstands the scope and purpose of Dr. Greene asking her questions about her relationship with Mr. Sepulveda. Defendants explain that:

What is in dispute – and relevant here – is whether Plaintiff accused Mr. Sepulveda of sexual misconduct and then recanted that accusation. Dr. Greene should be able to explore at the IME any history (both past and present) Plaintiff has of making allegations of sexual assault (against Mr. Sepulveda or others) and retracting such allegations, and her mental health status and motivation for doing so. The direct relevance of this line of inquiry in a case in which Plaintiff has accused Dr. Singh of sexual assault is manifest.

(Reply, 4:11-17.)

The crux of Defendants’ argument is that Dr. Greene must be allowed to test Plaintiff’s credibility. As previously explained by this Court on defendant Danube River Holdings LLC dba RiverPointe Post-Acute’s (“RiverPointe”) motion for leave to obtain discovery under Section 2017.220, “the Court views RiverPointe’s argument that the information may lead to relevant habit and credibility evidence as two sides of the same coin, as each argument is based on the claim that Plaintiff may have previously falsely reported sexual assaults. As noted above, that a plaintiff’s sexual history may be relevant to credibility is not sufficient under section 2017.220(a), without more. (Mendez, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d at p. 575.)” (March 18, 2025, Order re: Ruling on Submitted Matter.)

Dr. Greene will not be allowed to question Plaintiff regarding her allegations against Mr. Sepulveda.

Medical History

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007225: DOE vs RACHANDEEP SINGH, M.D., et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Compelling Mental Examination of Plaintiff Jane Doe in Department 16C

Plaintiff notes that in connection with RiverPointe’s subpoena to Elica Health Centers, the Court modified RiverPointe’s subpoena, finding that RiverPointe “has not sufficiently established why Plaintiff’s medical records related to any physical condition would be directly relevant to her claims of emotional distress. Plaintiff is only alleging emotional distress damages. Accordingly, the Court elects to modify the subpoena to exclude from production any records that pertain to any physical medical conditions that Plaintiff suffered from or was treated for.” (April 29, 2026, Order re: Ruling on Submitted Matter.)

Thus, according to Plaintiff, the ruling should control, and “Defendants cannot obtain the same category of information this Court has already determined is outside the permissible scope of discovery. Accordingly, the Court should limit Dr. Greene’s inquiry into Plaintiff’s past medical history to her mental and psychiatric history and treatment only.” (Opposition, 8:8-10.)

In reply, Defendants advance that they are not asking for the production of Plaintiff’s medical records. Rather, “questions about Plaintiff’s medical history, including any significant physical medical conditions and medications she has taken for those conditions, are relevant to evaluating alternative sources of Plaintiff’s claimed emotional distress.” (Reply, 4:19-21.) Defendants suggest that “a general understanding of Plaintiff’s health is essential and routine to any evaluation by a health care provider.

Medications taken for such significant medical conditions are also pertinent because they have known side effects, some of which can mirror mental health symptoms. These basic lines of questioning should be permitted at the IME.” (Reply, 4:23-5:4.) Dr. Greene’s declaration is silent on this subject, and Defendants provide no evidence linking any physical medical conditions to Plaintiff’s emotional distress.

Dr. Greene is permitted to ask Plaintiff questions regarding her medical history of complaints about or treatment of any of Plaintiff’s alleged mental, emotional and psychiatric conditions. Dr. Greene is not permitted to ask questions about other unrelated conditions or treatment.

Employment History

Plaintiff confirms that Dr. Greene should be allowed to ask Plaintiff questions regarding her “job performance prior to the alleged assault, the impact of the alleged assault on Plaintiff’s emotional distress, and her ability to function at work.” (Opposition, 8:24-25.) Defendants state that “[t]his is precisely the intended focus of questions at the IME related to Plaintiff’s employment history. Dr. Greene is not going to ask Plaintiff about her wages or training she has received through her employers.” (Reply, 5:11-13.)

Accordingly, Dr. Greene is permitted to ask Plaintiff questions regarding her job performance prior to the alleged assault, the impact of the alleged assault on Plaintiff’s emotional distress, and her ability to function at work.

Education History

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007225: DOE vs RACHANDEEP SINGH, M.D., et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Compelling Mental Examination of Plaintiff Jane Doe in Department 16C

Plaintiff notes that in connection with Defendants’ subpoena to Carrington College, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to quash in its entirety. In so ruling, the Court explained that it was:

not persuaded that Plaintiff has placed her educational records at issue such that she has waived her right to privacy. Defendants have not pointed to any evidence, such as Plaintiff's discovery responses, showing that Plaintiff made any contention that her academic performance was [sic] been affected. Rather, Plaintiff has responded in discovery that she obtained a nursing degree from Carrington College and is not making a claim for loss of earning capacity. While Defendants may want to confirm Plaintiff’s statements that she received a degree, a subpoena seeking all of Plaintiff's academic records, including her school physicals, disciplinary records, course schedules, college application, and more for a period of February of 2022 to the present is overbroad and beyond the scope of permissible discovery.

(November 6, 2024, Order re: Ruling on Submitted Matter.)

In reply, Defendants “do not believe there is any real disagreement on this topic” because “[t]he focus of Dr. Greene’s intended questioning about Plaintiff’s educational history will be her level of education (i.e., where she went to school, degrees obtained, when they were obtained) and whether (and to what extent, if any) either the two prior sexual assaults or the alleged assault at issue here affected her academic performance.” (Reply, 5:16-19.)

The Court will allow Dr. Greene to ask about her level of education. However, Plaintiff is not making a claim for loss of earning capacity, and Defendants have not submitted any evidence showing that Plaintiff claims that her academic performance was affected by the alleged assault or the two prior sexual assaults. Accordingly, Dr. Greene will not be allowed to ask Plaintiff questions regarding whether the two prior sexual assaults or the alleged assault at issue here affected her academic performance.

Time Limitation for the Examination

Defendants estimate that the time for the IME will be 5 to 7 hours based largely on Plaintiff’s pace. Dr. Greene explains:

12. The Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation of Jane Doe consists of two parts. The first part will be a clinical interview which takes approximately three (3) to four (4) hours. The second part consists of the administration of three standard and validated psychological and neuropsychological tests to Jane Doe. These non- invasive tests and procedures are not timed by me; the time it takes to complete

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007225: DOE vs RACHANDEEP SINGH, M.D., et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Compelling Mental Examination of Plaintiff Jane Doe in Department 16C

the tests is solely dependent on Jane Doe, the examinee. Most examinees complete the testing within two (2) to three (3) hours. Consequently, I recommend reserving seven (7) hours to complete the clinical interview and three tests.

[¶]

20. In my professional experience, the clinical interview portion of a Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation can take up to four hours, and the administration of the three psychological tests that will be given to Jane Doe can take up to three hours, consequently, it can take up to seven hours to complete the Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation. The evaluation could be completed in as little as five hours, but the duration is based entirely on the examinee’s pace. Consequently, up to seven hours of time should be reserved to complete the Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation of an examinee including a comprehensive examination of intellectual functioning, reasoning, judgment, psychological symptoms, mental disorders and personality traits—all of which have a direct bearing upon obtaining an accurate diagnosis and estimate of functional impairment and subjective distress.

It is essential for me to learn as much as possible about the full panoply of the examinee’s life experiences to make accurate diagnostic and prognostic assessments. A Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation of this nature must, out of necessity, be much more detailed and complex than the abbreviated initial clinical evaluation done for the purposes of treatment, since forensic psychiatric experts for the defense generally do not have the luxury of gathering information through a series of follow-up interviews.

In addition, it has been my experience that in some instances, an examinee may be more defensive or guarded during the interview process conducted by experts for the defense than are typical clinical patients, thus requiring more questioning in order to obtain a thorough account of the person’s history or symptoms, which lengthens the time needed for the interview.

(Dr. Greene Decl., ¶¶ 12, 20.)

Plaintiff urges that the Court limit the entire examination to 4-to-5-hours. Plaintiff argues that “[a]fter forcing Plaintiff to commute from Sacramento to the East Bay during rush hour traffic, Defendants seek to reserve seven hours for the IME, which includes up to four hours for oral examination. Plaintiff objects to an open-ended, four-hour interview into broad areas of Plaintiff’s private life. [P]articularly because much of the information Dr. Greene proposes to obtain has already been extensively explored through discovery and more than seven hours of deposition testimony.” (Opposition, 9:28-5.) Plaintiff adds that the time for the examination will also be reduced given that the categories of examination should be narrowed.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007225: DOE vs RACHANDEEP SINGH, M.D., et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Compelling Mental Examination of Plaintiff Jane Doe in Department 16C

In compromise, Defendants have agreed to have the IME of up to seven hours conducted in or around Sacramento, provided an adequate location can be secured. (Reply, 6:3-5.)

Given that the Court has narrowed the scope of examination, the Court will limit the time for the entire IME to no more than six hours. The location shall be in Sacramento as long as an adequate location can be secured.

Disposition

In sum, Defendants’ motion for leave to conduct Plaintiff’s Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation is GRANTED, subject to the above conditions. The Parties shall also meet and confer regarding a Sacramento location for the Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation.

Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

This minute order is effective immediately. Defendants shall submit a proposed order for the Court’s signature pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 that includes all the information required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.320(d).

Moving counsel’s notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact Plaintiff’s counsel and advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact Plaintiff’s counsel prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing.

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Department 16C Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-1475 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below.

If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court. Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007225: DOE vs RACHANDEEP SINGH, M.D., et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Compelling Mental Examination of Plaintiff Jane Doe in Department 16C

remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3087 7014. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-transcripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided. [1] Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. [2] The Court notes that the medical records do not define “SI” or “SA.” However, given the context, the Court will

assume that “SA” means “suicide attempt.” [3] The Court observed that Defendants’ papers appeared to focus on the two sexual assaults, thus, the Court

presumed that Defendants were not seeking discovery related to Plaintiff’s purported child sexual abuse. (Ibid.)