RIVERA vs SACRAMENTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al.

24CV016415: RIVERA vs SACRAMENTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al. 08/18/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Independent Mental Examinations in Department 16C

Tentative Ruling

Defendant Sacramento City Unified School District’s (“Defendant”) motion to compel Plaintiff Mary Rivera’s (“Plaintiff”) mental examinations is ruled upon as follows.

This action involves allegations of childhood sexual assault. Plaintiff alleges that in 2010, she volunteered as a student aide in an afterschool program jointly run by the Defendant and codefendant City of Sacramento (“the City”). The program was known as the START program and was located at Mark Twain Elementary School (“Mark Twain”). Plaintiff alleges that one of the program’s leaders, Joshua Rolando Vasquez, groomed her over a period of time before sexually assaulting her inside of a classroom at Mark Twain. She alleges that afterwards, she never returned to Mark Twain or the START Program, and that a month later, she attempted to commit suicide. Plaintiff alleges that Vasquez sexually assaulted several other minors in the START program, and in 2016 he was convicted of childhood sexual assault. Plaintiff alleges that:

34. Prior to PERPETRATOR’s sexual assault on her, Plaintiff was a normal 13 year-old, with dreams, hope, and laughter. She enjoyed running, reading, drawing, and writing, and earned solid grades. After being sexually assaulted, and as a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ actions, Plaintiff lost interest in everything. Her life spiraled out of control. Her grades the next school year plummeted to the point where she was not allowed to walk across the graduation stage at the end of eighth grade.

35. As a further direct and proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ actions, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress, depression, embarrassment, humiliation, shame, sadness, low self-esteem, loss of enjoyment of life, hypervigilance, and difficulty trusting others and sustaining relationships.

(Complaint, ¶¶ 34-35.)

Trial is scheduled for December 7, 2026.

The parties met and conferred regarding neuropsychological and psychiatric testing. The parties agreed to most conditions of the testing, but disagree as to whether Defendant should be required to disclose all reports, raw test data, scoring sheets, answer sheets, and examiner notes (collectively, “Raw Data”) to Plaintiff’s counsel, not just Plaintiff’s psychologist or psychiatrist expert. The parties also disagreed on certain topics to be addressed in the psychiatric interview.

Defendant moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to submit neuropsychological testing performed by Dr. William Hooker, Ph.D (“Dr. Hooker”) and a psychiatric interview performed

24CV016415: RIVERA vs SACRAMENTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al. 08/18/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Independent Mental Examinations in Department 16C

by Dr. Ann Lee Kuo.

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 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).)

Discussion

The Court first notes that Defendant’s notice of motion is defective. Section 2032.310,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016415: RIVERA vs SACRAMENTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al. 08/18/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Independent Mental Examinations in Department 16C

subdivision (b) requires that “[a] motion for an examination under subdivision (a) 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.” None of this information is in the motion. While the memorandum of points and authorities includes this information, Defendant did not specify the time or place of the examinations. Instead, Defendant stated that examinations will take place “at a neutral location in Sacramento on a mutually agreeable date between Plaintiff and Dr. Hooker/[Dr. Kuo].” (Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities, 13:5, 13:12.) Nonetheless, since Plaintiff’s opposition does not address this deficiency or the effect thereof on the motion, any objection thereto is waived.

Second, although California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(6) requires a separate statement for a “medical examination over objection,” the Court concludes that Defendant has sufficiently set forth the factual nature of the dispute and that Plaintiff was able to provide a substantive opposition. The Court will exercise its discretion to consider the merits of the motion notwithstanding Defendant’s failure to include a separate statement as required by Rule 3.1345(a)(6).

Plaintiff does not argue that Defendant has not shown good cause for the mental examination, but argues that certain conditions should be imposed on the examination. The Court will discuss those conditions below.

The Court finds that Defendant has shown good cause for the mental examination.

Raw Data

Both parties cite to Randy’s Trucking, Inc. v. Superior Court (“Randy’s Trucking”) (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 818 in support of their positions regarding whether Defendant should be required to disclose Raw Data to Plaintiff’s counsel.

In Randy's Trucking, the trial court granted the defendants’ motion to compel the plaintiff’s mental examination by a neuropsychologist. (Randy’s Trucking, Inc., supra, 91 Cal.App.5th at p. 824.) The court denied the defendants’ request to transfer the testing information to the plaintiffs’ expert rather than the plaintiffs’ counsel. (Id. at p. 832.) Instead, the court ordered the neuropsychologist to provide an audio recording of the examination and “‘all raw data’” to the plaintiffs’ counsel within 30 days after the examination subject to a protective order. (Ibid.)

The protective order in Randy’s Trucking provided:

Plaintiff’s counsel, defense counsel and all experts, consultants and employees of the respective firms shall maintain the security of all raw data, test materials and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016415: RIVERA vs SACRAMENTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al. 08/18/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Independent Mental Examinations in Department 16C

other medically private information obtained during the examination. However, such raw data, test materials and other medically private information may be disclosed to plaintiff’s counsel, defense counsel and all experts, consultants and employees of the respective firms for use in this case. Such materials and data may also be shown to the trier of fact at the time of trial, or such other time as may be necessary for the adjudication of the above-captioned matter. These materials may be used for no other purpose, may not be disseminated to any other party and the parties shall take all reasonable steps to maintain the confidentiality of the above-identified materials.

(Id. at p. 828.) The protective order also required the parties to, “destroy the above-identified materials at the cessation of this case, in accordance with the provisions of the California Rules of Professional Conduct.” (Ibid.)

The defendants in Randy’s Trucking moved for reconsideration on the ground that their retained expert had recused herself from the case, and they had spoken with two experts who refused to do the exam under the court’s existing order. (Randy’s Trucking, Inc., supra, 91 Cal.App.5th at pp. 828-829.) The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration. Defendants filed a petition for writ of mandate.

The Court of Appeal denied defendants’ petition for writ of mandate, finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. (Id. at p. 825.) The court observed, “[t]here is no statutory authority, . . . precluding a trial court from ordering the disclosure of test materials or test data when ordering a mental examination.” (Id. at p. 834, citing Carpenter v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 249, 271.) And “given the trial court’s broad discretion in discovery matters, it retains the discretion to order the production of such materials.” (Id. at p. 835.) Therefore, the trial court had discretion to order the production to the plaintiffs’ counsel of the raw data and audio recording. (Id. at p. 837.)

The defendants argued the trial court abused its discretion because the need to protect the neuropsychologist from violating her ethical and professional obligations outweighed the plaintiffs’ need for the raw data and audio recording. (Ibid.) The doctor explained the problems with allowing a third-party observer (“TPO”) and the recording of the examination, including:

(1) compromising the validity of future neuropsychological test results; (2) potential misuse and misinterpretation of tests by untrained TPOs “who have no compelling interest in protection of copyrighted test content”; (3) potential conflicts with the APA Ethical Standards and “several key principles in the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology of the American Psychological Association (2013)”; (4) the increased likelihood test content and instructions

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016415: RIVERA vs SACRAMENTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al. 08/18/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Independent Mental Examinations in Department 16C

would be disseminated which “raises the risk that motivated parties will coach and prepare examinees for testing in advance, specifically to influence test results”; and (5) “[l]awyers involved in brain injury litigation routinely coach their clients how to approach neuropsychological testing to their advantage.

(Ibid.)

Nevertheless, the court found this insufficient because the doctor, “did not explain why a protective order would not ameliorate those dangers. She also did not explain why her ethical obligations would be violated if a court ordered her to disclose the raw data and audio recording to plaintiffs’ attorney subject to a protective order. Dr. Victor identified numerous standards in the APA Ethical Standards by number which she claimed could be violated if TPO were allowed, but Dr. Victor did not explain the potential violations and the APA Ethical Standards were not submitted to the trial court.” (Id. at pp. 837-838.)

Further, the Court of Appeal reasoned that, “[w]ithout the raw data and audio recording, [the plaintiffs] 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.” (Id. at p. 838.) Moreover, the plaintiffs “should not be forced to retain an expert to gain access to these materials and even if they do retain one, that expert can only assist the attorney in preparing for cross-examination; to prepare and conduct an effective cross-examination, ‘the attorney must themselves possess more than a second-hand understanding of the information being scrutinized.’” (Ibid.)

Defendant contends that a protective order is insufficient to guarantee test security and preserve Dr. Hooker’s ethical obligations and concerns. The court in Carpenter, supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at p. 274, determined that a protective order was adequate to protect against copyright concerns in relation to providing copies of neuropsychological tests, and the Court concludes the same reasoning applies here.

Defendant also suggests that attorneys that have knowledge of the tests will coach their next clients for evaluation. The Court, however, does not presume that its orders, including protective orders, will be violated. Nor is the Court persuaded by Dr. Hooker’s speculation in this regard. In fact, the most sensitive materials imaginable in all varieties of litigation in all courts throughout this state are secured by court-imposed protective orders. There is no exception to be made here.

Defendant claims that the request for the Raw Data would expose Dr. Hooker to a risk of ethical violation in permitting the potential release of the testing materials to the general public. While Dr. Hooker has identified certain standards pursuant to the California Board of Psychology and the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, he failed to specifically identify how

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016415: RIVERA vs SACRAMENTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al. 08/18/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Independent Mental Examinations in Department 16C

his professional or ethical obligations will be violated if he is ordered to release the Raw Data to counsel subject to a protective order. The court in Randy’s Trucking, upon reviewing APA standard 9.11, which states, “Psychologists make reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of test materials and other assessment techniques consistent with law and contractual obligations, and in a manner that permits adherence to this Ethics Code[,]” noted that Section 9.11 “does not require a psychologist to defy a court order for the purposes of guarding test materials.” (Randy's Trucking, supra, 91 Cal.App.5th at p. 839, fn. 11.) Similarly, nothing cited by Dr. Hooker indicates that he would be in violation of his obligations by producing the Raw Data to Plaintiff’s counsel under a protective order.

Defendant also insists that the almost 300 psychologists who signed the Collective Statement each state they would recuse themselves from a case rather than release raw data to a non-psychologist, even subject to a protective order. Additionally, Dr. Hooker averred that he “would not agree to releasing protected test information that would jeopardize future use of tests to a non-psychologist, including attorneys, even under a protective order,” and that “[i]f this stipulation cannot be met, I would recuse myself from a case.” (Decl. of Dr. Hooker, ¶ 25.) Defendant, however, makes no showing that it has attempted to contact other neuropsychologists, and that those experts would refuse to conduct an examination and produce the raw data, etc., to counsel subject to a protective order.

The Court exercises its discretion and orders release of Raw Data to Plaintiff’s attorney subject to a protective order akin to that approved in Randy's Trucking.

Disputed Topics

The parties dispute whether Dr. Kuo should be allowed to interview Plaintiff on the following topics:

 Prior civil lawsuits filed by other Vasquez victims  Medical history  Litigation goals or desired outcome  Plaintiff’s son’s medical or health conditions  Sexual abuse not disclosed at deposition

Prior Lawsuits

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s request to prohibit Dr. Kuo from asking Plaintiff regarding prior civil lawsuits filed by others allegedly abused by Vasquez is “laughably hypocritical” because Plaintiff has “relentlessly pursued” this information from Defendant. (Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities, 11:1-2.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016415: RIVERA vs SACRAMENTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al. 08/18/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Independent Mental Examinations in Department 16C

Plaintiff argues in opposition that information regarding these prior lawsuits “is irrelevant to any clinical assessment of Plaintiff's symptom presentation, diagnosis, or prognosis. A forensic examiner need not (and typically does not) question the examinee about the perpetrator's other victims as part of a psychological evaluation.” (Opposition, 18:19-21.) Plaintiff notes that Defendant fails to explain what clinical purpose this line of questioning would serve.

The Court agrees with Plaintiff. Defendant provides no reason why this information is required for a psychiatric examination. “[A]n opposing party may not require [the plaintiff] to undergo psychiatric testing solely on the basis of speculation that something of interest may surface.” (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 840.)

Dr. Kuo is not permitted to ask Plaintiff questions regarding the prior civil lawsuits filed by other Vasquez victims.

Medical History

Defendant next argues that Dr. Kuo should be allowed to question Plaintiff on her medical history because she has alleged that the abuse caused her to attempt to commit suicide and by claiming trauma-related injuries. Plaintiff also seeks past, present, and future special damages for medical care expenses. According to Defendant, “medical history is inseparable from an adequate psychiatric evaluation. Medical conditions can mimic, cause, or coexist with psychiatric disorders, and excluding that history prevents Dr. Kuo from obtaining enough information to form a reliable opinion.” (Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities, 11:14-16.)

Plaintiff maintains that she has not placed her entire medical history in controversy. Rather, she has only placed into controversy her psychological and emotional harm resulting from childhood sexual assault. Plaintiff adds that permitting an examiner to conduct an open-ended inquiry into her general medical history “would convert what is supposed to be a focused mental examination into a roving medical inquisition untethered to any condition in controversy. Defendant is not entitled to a blanket authorization for its experts to probe.” (Opposition, 6:20-22.)

A party does not sacrifice all privacy rights when it puts a specific medical condition at issue. (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 863-864.) “‘As Lifschutz explains, plaintiffs are ‘not obligated to sacrifice all privacy to seek redress for a specific [physical,] mental or emotional injury’; while they may not withhold information which relates to any physical or mental condition which they have put in issue by bringing this lawsuit, they are entitled to retain the confidentiality of all unrelated medical or psychotherapeutic treatment they may have undergone in the past. The trial court thus obviously erred in ordering plaintiffs to disclose to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016415: RIVERA vs SACRAMENTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al. 08/18/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Independent Mental Examinations in Department 16C

defendant their entire lifetime medical histories and this aspect of the challenged discovery order must also be vacated.’” (Id. at 864.)

Here, Plaintiff has alleged she was sexually abused as a minor. While Plaintiff has placed at issue her mental, emotional, and psychological condition caused by the alleged sexual abuse, she has not placed her entire medical history at issue. Moreover, Defendant provides no declaration from Dr. Kuo or any other mental health professional supporting its argument that, “medical history is inseparable from an adequate psychiatric evaluation. Medical conditions can mimic, cause, or coexist with psychiatric disorders, and excluding that history prevents Dr. Kuo from obtaining enough information form a reliable opinion.” (Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities, 11:14-16.)

In her complaint Plaintiff claimed to suffer emotional distress, depression, embarrassment, humiliation, shame, sadness, low self-esteem, loss of enjoyment of life, hypervigilance, and difficulty trusting others and sustaining relationships. There is no evidence, and it is illogical to assume, that having a broken toe or a skin infection on her hand would be at all related to Plaintiff’s claimed emotional and psychological injuries stemming from the alleged sexual assaults. Accordingly Dr. Kuo is permitted to ask Plaintiff questions regarding her medical history of complaints about or treatment of any of those enumerated conditions. Dr. Kuo is not allowed to ask questions about other unrelated conditions or treatment.

Litigation Goals and Desired Outcome

Defendant advances that Dr. Kuo should be allowed to question Plaintiff regarding her litigation goals and desired outcome because it goes to her motivation in bringing the lawsuit, and that her motivation is an “emotional symptom that informs the extent of her alleged emotional injuries.” (Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities, 11:19-20.) Defendant notes that during her deposition, Plaintiff was asked regarding her motivation, and her counsel did not object to the line of questioning.

Plaintiff rejoins that her litigation goals are not a recognized area of clinical inquiry, and that her “desire for accountability, for justice, or for compensation is not a psychiatric symptom.” (Opposition, 7:3-4.) Plaintiff continues that a psychiatric examination is unlike a deposition which affords protections to the deponent with counsel present and the ability to object.

The Court agrees with Plaintiff. Defendant provides no reason why this information is required for a psychiatric examination. “[A]n opposing party may not require [the plaintiff] to undergo psychiatric testing solely on the basis of speculation that something of interest may surface.” (Vinson, supra, 43 Cal.3d at 840.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016415: RIVERA vs SACRAMENTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al. 08/18/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Independent Mental Examinations in Department 16C

Dr. Kuo is not permitted to ask Plaintiff questions regarding her litigation goals and desired outcomes.

Plaintiff’s Son’s Medical or Health Conditions

Defendant insists that Plaintiff has placed her son’s medical or health conditions at issue because she testified that her son’s medical condition prevented her from seeking treatment. According to Defendant, this “would be analyzed as an additional stressor in Plaintiff’s life, negatively contributing to her mental health. The discussion need not be about the specific type of medical condition or treatment, but whether Plaintiff’s son requires round-the-clock or extensive care due to a medical condition.

That undoubtedly affects Plaintiff’s claim for injuries and damages.” (Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities, 12:2-5.) Defendant adds that “[a]lternatively, if Plaintiff’s son does not have a medical condition and she is just busy taking care of him and thus cannot seek mental health treatment, that too informs whether Plaintiff is reasonably certain to actually receive any recommended future treatment.” (Id., 12:6-8)

Plaintiff explains that her deposition testimony “[i]s not an invitation for a defense psychiatrist to probe the details of a minor child's medical conditions. . . . Defendant’s expert can ask Plaintiff whether caregiving demands have limited her ability to pursue therapy. She does not need to know what condition the child has, what medications he takes, or what his treatment involves.” (Opposition, 7:18-19, 7:22-25.)

Here, Defendant explains that Dr. Kuo does not need to know about Plaintiff’s son’s specific condition, but simply the type of care he requires. Plaintiff also concedes that Dr. Kuo may question Plaintiff regarding her son’s caregiving demands.

Accordingly, Dr. Kuo will be allowed to ask Plaintiff questions regarding her son’s caregiving demands.

Sexual Abuse Not Disclosed at Deposition

Defendant claims that questions regarding this topic are relevant because: (1) by claiming Defendant’s conduct caused her emotional distress, Plaintiff implicitly claims that her distress was not caused by a preexisting condition or another source, thereby placing alternative causes at issue, and (2) other instances of sexual abuse are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s damages.

Plaintiff argues that Defendant fails to establish specific facts showing that there is good cause of the discovery as required by Section 2017.220.

Section 2017.220(a) provides, “[i]n any civil action alleging conduct that constitutes sexual

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016415: RIVERA vs SACRAMENTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al. 08/18/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Independent Mental Examinations in Department 16C

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.” (Code 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).)

“‘[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).)

The defendant in Mendez sought “discovery of plaintiff's sexual history with others at the sheriff's department. Defendant Mendez also renewed his discovery request of plaintiff's sexual conduct with persons other than Mendez.” In analyzing this case, the Barrenda court said, “The request is based solely on the speculative presumption that infidelity may lead to emotional distress; nowhere have defendants demonstrated any factual support for this presumption.”

Similarly, the defendants in Barrenda sought information about how many children the plaintiff had, whether she gave birth to a baby, whether she had three prior abortions, whether she had sexual intercourse with anyone and whether the alleged attack was the first time that she had sex with someone.

In this case Defendant is not seeking information about Plaintiff’s sexual activity in general, including consensual sex, but only instances of prior sexual abuse. As Defendant argues, “other instances of sexual abuse are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s damages.” There is a significant difference between a prurient fishing expedition into a plaintiff’s entire sexual experience and a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016415: RIVERA vs SACRAMENTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al. 08/18/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Independent Mental Examinations in Department 16C

targeted inquiry into whether a plaintiff has suffered other sexual abuse. In this case Defendant has shown good cause for Dr. Kuo to inquire into other past acts of sexual abuse that may have caused harm to Plaintiff.

Dr. Kuo is permitted to ask Plaintiff questions regarding any prior sexual abuse not disclosed at deposition.

Disposition

In sum, Defendant’s motion for leave to conduct Plaintiff’s mental examinations is GRANTED, subject to the above conditions and a protective order. The Parties shall meet and confer forthwith and submit a protective order consistent with Randy’s Trucking. Dr. Hooker shall provide the Raw Data to Plaintiff’s counsel within 30 days of the examination. However, the Raw Data material shall be subject to the protective order.

The Parties shall also meet and confer regarding a neutral location for the mental examinations, as well as a mutually agreeable date(s) and time(s) for the mental examinations.

This minute order is effective immediately. Defendant 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).

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016415: RIVERA vs SACRAMENTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al. 08/18/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Independent Mental Examinations in Department 16C

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.