POSADA vs SANDHAR, et al.

23CV002194: POSADA vs SANDHAR, et al. 06/22/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Attend Two Additional Independent Medical Examinations in Department 8C

Tentative Ruling

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 Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 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 remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 8C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16039062174 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3906 2174. 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

23CV002194: POSADA vs SANDHAR, et al. 06/22/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Attend Two Additional Independent Medical Examinations in Department 8C

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.

TENTATIVE RULING

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION***

Defendant Avtar Singh Sandhar’s (“Defendant”) motion to compel Plaintiff Yara Posada (“Plaintiff”) to appear for two independent medical examinations (“IME”) is ruled upon as follows.

Background

This is a personal injury action arising from an alleged rear-end motor vehicle collision that occurred on August 3, 2021. Plaintiff filed the Complaint on May 24, 2023.

In her initial written discovery responses served on January 24, 2024, Plaintiff stated that she had “suffered injuries associated with her head, neck, left arm, back, sleep issues, residual pain, limited range of motion, and other sequela arising from the motor vehicle collision.” (Vandersluys Decl., Exh. B, No. 6.2.) Plaintiff identified her providers as Advantage MRI, Kaiser Permanente, and two chiropractors. (Vandersluys Decl., Exh. B, No. 6.4.)

On June 27, 2025, Plaintiff served an amended response to Form Interrogatory No. 6.4 that identified “BrainCare Solutions” as an additional provider and described the treatment she had received as “Full Battery Diagnostic.” (Amend. Mot. MPA, p. 4:15-16.) On September 19, 2025, Plaintiff served a supplemental response to No. 6.4 identifying the treatment she received at BrainCare Solutions as “TBI.” (Amend. Mot. MPA, p. 4:17-20.[1])

On October 13, 2025, Defendant served an amended notice of IME, with the examination scheduled for January 16, 2026 to be performed by Dr. David Jones, an orthopedic surgeon. (Vandersluys Decl., Exh. F.) The notice stated that Dr. Jones would “conduct an examination of Plaintiff’s spine and any other areas potentially involved as may be determined based upon

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV002194: POSADA vs SANDHAR, et al. 06/22/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Attend Two Additional Independent Medical Examinations in Department 8C

complaints of Plaintiff, using the following methods and diagnostic tests: clinical examination, patient history, and s-rays as may be appropriate, upon consent of Plaintiff.” (Vandersluys Decl., Exh. F, pp. 1:27-2:2.) Plaintiff appeared for this IME as noticed. On January 28, 2026, Dr. Jones issued his IME report. (Vandersluys Decl., Exh. G.) According to the report, Dr. Jones conducted a physical examination of Plaintiff’s spine and shoulders. Dr. Jones also reviewed Plaintiff’s pre- and post-collision medical records, including her post-collision records from BrainCare Solutions.

In the Discussion section of the report, Dr. Jones summarized his review of Plaintiff’s medical records, including the records from BrainCare Solutions, summarized his findings from the examination of Plaintiff’s spine, and offered his opinion as to additional treatment Plaintiff may need and whether spine surgery was indicated to treat Plaintiff’s back/neck pain. Dr. Jones also stated, “I have no opinion regarding [Plaintiff’s] traumatic brain injury or concussive-type symptoms.” (Vandersluys Decl., Exh.

F, p. 12.)

On April 3, 2026,[2] Plaintiff’s counsel served a demand letter. (Vandersluys Decl., ¶ 6, Exh. E.) The letter asserts that Plaintiff suffered cognitive impairment and psychiatric injuries as a result of the collision. The letter also states that Plaintiff underwent a comprehensive forensic neuropsychological evaluation performed by Dr. Aimée Vickers Sanchez, Ph.D on August 19, 2025. Additionally, the letter states that Dr. Sanchez diagnosed Plaintiff with a mood disorder as well as other psychiatric symptoms and conditions, and that Dr. Sanchez attributes 90% of Plaintiff’s current psychiatric symptoms to the collision, with the remaining 10% attributed to Plaintiff’s pre-existing vulnerability. (Vandersluys Decl., Exh. E, pp. 3-4.)

On April 23, 2026, Defendant served a notice of IME (neuro), with the examination scheduled for May 28, 2026 to be performed by Dr. Charles Skomer, M.D., a neurologist. (Vandersluys Decl., Exh. H.) The notice stated that Dr. Skomer would “conduct an examination of Plaintiff’s head/brain and any other areas potentially involved as may be determined based upon complaints of Plaintiff, using the following methods and diagnostic tests: clinical examination, patient history, and x-rays as may be appropriate, upon consent of Plaintiff.” (Vandersluys Decl., Exh.

H, pp. 1:27-2:2.) On April 28, 2026, Defendant served a notice of IME (neuropsych), with the examination scheduled for June 9, 2026 to be performed by Dr. Elliot Henderson, a clinical neuropsychologist. (Vandersluys Decl., Exh. I.) The notice stated that Dr. Henderson would “conduct an examination of Plaintiff’s traumatic brain injury, concussion, cognitive impairment, impaired awareness, insight and memory, and any other areas potentially involved as may be determined based upon complaints of Plaintiff,” utilizing a battery of neuropsychological tests. (Vandersluys Decl., Exh.

I, pp. 1:27-2:18.)

Between April 14 and April 24, 2026, the parties exchanged correspondence in an effort to reach an agreement on Plaintiff appearing for the IMEs without Court intervention. (Vandersluys Decl., ¶ 9, Exhs. L-O.) The parties did not reach an agreement, and Defendant field this motion on April 30, 2026.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV002194: POSADA vs SANDHAR, et al. 06/22/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Attend Two Additional Independent Medical Examinations in Department 8C

Discussion

As an initial matter, Defendant’s motion does not include a separate statement. “Any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).) The types of motions that expressly requires a separate statement include “[f]or medical examination over objection[.]” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(6).) Whether the present motion falls within this category is unclear. Unlike a motion to compel a first physical medical examination of a personal injury plaintiff under Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.250, a motion for an additional examination or mental examination under Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.310 et seq. does not contemplate service of a formal IME demand or formal objections before the motion is filed.

Thus, a motion for mental examination may not fall within the category of a motion for “medical examination over objection[.]” (Ibid.) Even so, Plaintiff’s counsel raised objections to specific aspects of the two IMEs that are the subject of this motion during the meet and confer process in a letter dated April 20, 2026. (See Vandersluys Decl., Exh. M.) Therefore, the present motion appears to “involv[e] the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request,” and requires a separate statement.

However, since Plaintiff did not raise this issue in her opposition, the Court excuses this defect in the motion and reaches the merits.

A defendant is entitled to one IME of a personal injury plaintiff’s physical condition as a matter of right. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2032.220.) Additional examinations, including mental examinations, may be conducted only through leave of court. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2032.310(a).) The moving party must establish good cause to conduct the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2032.320(a).) Good cause generally requires “that the party produce specific facts justifying discovery and that the inquiry be relevant to the subject matter of the action or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 840.) The good cause requirement is “designed to protect an examinee’s privacy interest by preventing an examination from becoming an annoying fishing expedition.” (Ibid.)

A motion for a mental examination “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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2032.310(b).) Similarly, an order granting a 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(d).)

There is no limit on the number of examinations that may be conducted, but each mental examination or additional physical examination must be supported by a showing of good cause. (Shapira v. Superior Court (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1249, 1255.)

Defendant contends that good cause exists for both examinations because Plaintiff has placed her

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV002194: POSADA vs SANDHAR, et al. 06/22/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Attend Two Additional Independent Medical Examinations in Department 8C

cognitive and neurological condition at issue in this case by claiming a traumatic brain injury resulting from the collision, causing both cognitive deficits and the development of psychiatric conditions. In opposition, Plaintiff contends that no good cause exists for the neurological IME, and that the neuropsychology IME lacks specificity as to the tests to be conducted and is oppressive in duration and scope.

Defendant notes that Dr. Skomer is a physician who is expected to examine Plaintiff’s head and brain in relation to Plaintiff’s claimed traumatic brain injury. Defendant also emphasizes that the initial IME performed by Dr. Jones was limited to Plaintiff’s spinal injuries, and that he explicitly did not evaluate or opine as to Plaintiff’s cognitive or mental complaints, so the IME by Dr. Skomer would not be cumulative.

Meanwhile, Plaintiff contends that Dr. Skomer’s IME would be duplicative of Dr. Jones’s IME, since Dr. Jones possessed and reviewed Plaintiff’s treatment records related to her brain injury and conducted a “full neurological screening” of Plaintiff. (Opp. MPA, p. 6:12.) Plaintiff argues, “A second neurologist would examine the very same central nervous system, by the same clinical methods, on the same subject matter.” (Opp. MPA, p. 6:16-17.) Plaintiff also notes that the respective notices for each IME both state that the examiners will conduct a “clinical examination, patient history, and x-rays as may be appropriate, upon consent of Plaintiff.” (Opp.

MPA, p. 6:19-20.) Plaintiff also argues that Defendant was aware that Plaintiff was claiming a brain injury before the first IME was noticed, and thus the decision to use Dr. Jones as the examiner and to limit his opinion to Plaintiff’s spinal injury was a tactical choice. Finally, Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s notice of motion and proposed order fail to comply with the Code because they fail to specify the tests and procedures to be performed, and conditions to be examined, and the scope and nature of the examination.

The Court does not agree with Plaintiff’s argument that an IME by Dr. Skomer would be duplicative of Dr. Jones’s IME. The Court recognizes that the spine is connected to the brain and that the spine is part of the body’s neurological function. However, Dr. Jones is an orthopedic surgeon specializing in spine surgery. His report makes only general references to neurological evaluations when he states, “From a neurological standpoint, [Plaintiff] was completely intact. Diagnostic imaging failed to demonstrate any evidence of acute fracture, subluxation or neurological impingement.” (Vandersluys Decl., Exh.

I, p. 12.) To the limited extent Dr. Jones evaluated Plaintiff’s neurological functioning, it was limited to Plaintiff’s spine. On the other hand, Dr. Skomer intends to evaluate Plaintiff’s brain. Moreover, it would have been improper for Dr. Jones’s examination and report to delve into Plaintiff’s mental functioning, since mental examinations require leave of court.

However, Defendant’s motion suffers from two flaws that require denial. First, Defendant has failed to specify the diagnostic tests and procedures to be performed in either IME. As noted above, an order granting a mental examination must specify, among other matters, the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV002194: POSADA vs SANDHAR, et al. 06/22/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Attend Two Additional Independent Medical Examinations in Department 8C

“diagnostic tests and procedures” to be performed at the examination. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2032.320(d).) “The requirement that the order ‘specify the diagnostic tests and procedures’ does not appear in the requirements for the motion for a mental examination or other physical examination (§ 2032.310).” (Carpenter v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 249, 259.) However, in order for the Court to comply with section 2032.320(d) by specifying the diagnostic tests and procedures to be performed, the defendant must “identify the potential tests and procedures in its moving papers.” (Id. at p. 267.)

This requires listing the tests and procedures by name. (Id. at p. 260.) Here, Defendant’s proposed order submitted with its motion makes no mention of the tests or procedures to be performed by Dr. Skomer or Dr. Henderson, or the conditions, scope, and nature of the examination, matters which also must be included in the order under section 2032.320(d). (See Proposed Order, pp. 1:21-2:5.) This information is also not provided in Defendant’s notice of motion. The IME demands attached to Ms. Vandersluys’ declaration provides some information on these topics, particularly for Dr.

Henderson, since the demand for his examination provides a list of tests to be performed. (See Vandersluys Decl., Exh. I.) However, the demand for Dr. Skomer’s examination simply states that the examination will be of Plaintiff’s head/brain and will be done via “clinical examination, patient history, and x-rays as may be appropriate, upon consent of Plaintiff.” (Vandersluys Decl., Exh. H, p. 2:1-2.)

Second, and related to the first flaw, Defendant has not shown good cause to conduct both IMEs. It is undisputed that Plaintiff has put her mental and/or cognitive condition at issue in this case. However, Defendant fails to explain why Plaintiff should be required to submit to a neurological examination and a neuropsychological examination. This flaw is compounded by the first flaw, since the lack of information regarding Dr. Skomer’s examination renders the Court unable to differentiate between the discoverable information that is to be obtained from each proposed IME.

The demand for Dr. Skomer’s IME states that he will examine Plaintiff’s head/brain through a clinical examination, patient history, and potentially x-rays, but it is not clear what information could be obtained through these methods and procedures given that Plaintiff is claiming a traumatic brain injury from a collision that occurred nearly five years ago. To the extent Dr. Skomer intends to assess Plaintiff’s neurological functioning by asking Plaintiff questions about her injury, this would seemingly overlap with Dr.

Elliot’s IME.

Disposition

Given these flaws, Defendant’s motion is DENIED. But, because Plaintiff does not dispute that her mental condition is at issue in this case, it would be appropriate for Plaintiff to submit to a mental examination.

The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s arguments that the Henderson IME lacks information about the specific tests to be performed and is oppressive in duration and scope. While the specific tests are not provided in the order or notice of motion as required, they are included in the IME notice. In addition, Plaintiff has not made a sufficient showing that the proposed

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV002194: POSADA vs SANDHAR, et al. 06/22/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Attend Two Additional Independent Medical Examinations in Department 8C

duration and scope of the Skomer IME is oppressive.

Accordingly, the denial of the present motion is without prejudice to Defendant seeking leave for a mental examination or examinations with a sufficient showing of good cause and in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.320(d). In light of the guidance provided by this tentative ruling, the Court expects the parties should be able to reach an agreement, after a good faith meet and confer, for Plaintiff to submit to a mental IME without the necessity of court intervention.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.) [1] The Court cites to Defendant’s brief in this paragraph, as opposed to Ms. Vandersluys’ declaration, because the

exhibits attached to the declaration do not include the pages containing these responses. (See Vandersluys Decl., Exhs. C and D.) Plaintiff does not dispute that the description of these responses in Defendant’s brief is accurate. [2] Defendant’s brief and counsel’s declaration state that the letter was served on April 23, 2026. The Court observes

that the letter itself is dated April 3, 2026, and the margin header on the third page and every odd-numbered page thereafter lists the date of the letter as October 1, 2025. (See Vandersluys Decl., Exh. E.) However, Plaintiff does not dispute Defendant’s assertion that the letter was served April 23, 2026.