DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
S-CV-0051395·placer·Civil·Personal Injury
Hearing in about 4 hoursGRANTED

PASQUINELLI, RONALD v. RIELE, CASEY

Defendants’ Motion for Order to Compel Plaintiff’s Submission to Neuropsychological Examination

Hearing date
Sep 4, 2026
Department
1
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Discovery rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffPASQUINELLI, RONALD
DefendantRIELE, CASEY

Attorneys

Ruling

PLACER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT FRIDAY, CIVIL LAW AND MOTION DEPARTMENT 1 COMMISSIONER CHRISTINE S. DEHR TENTATIVE RULINGS FOR SEPTEMBER 4, 2026 AT 8:30 A.M.

12. S-CV-0051395 PASQUINELLI, RONALD v. RIELE, CASEY NOTE: If oral argument is requested in this case, it shall be heard on SEPTEMBER 4, 2026 AT 1:00 P.M. in DEPARTMENT 1. Defendants’ Motion for Order to Compel Plaintiff’s Submission to Neuropsychological Examination The motion is granted. (Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.320(d).) Plaintiff Ronald Pasquinelli shall appear on October 13, 2026 from 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the Regus Stockton, 2453 Grand Canal Boulevard 1st and 2d Floor, Stockton, California 95207 before Sharon Perlman Berry, Psy.D. for a neuropsychological evaluation.

The evaluation shall be limited in the following manner and/or subject to the following conditions: 1.) The examination shall not be longer than seven (7) hours in length. This limitation does not include break periods or lunch periods. 2.) The examination shall only include the diagnostic testing as identified below:

3.) The examination shall be audio recorded and made available to plaintiff’s counsel. 4.) The examiner’s written report will be made available to plaintiff’s counsel. 5.) The raw data shall be preserved and made available to plaintiff’s counsel. 6.) All discoverable material from the examination shall be preserved and maintained during the pendency of the litigation.

PLACER SUPERIOR COURT – DEPARTMENT 1 Friday Civil Law and Motion – Tentative Rulings

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share