FERRER vs APL MARINE SERVICES, LTD

24CV084084: FERRER vs APL MARINE SERVICES, LTD 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel NOTICE OF MOTION AND JOINT CROSS MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY EXPERT WITNESSES JEFFREY SCHAEFFER, PH.D, NIKKI FROUSAKIS, PH.D, AND HOWARD J. FRIEDMAN, PH.D, ABPP; filed by APL Marine Services, LTD (Defendant) CRS# 037092610069 in Department 512

Tentative Ruling - 09/09/2026 Elizabeth Riles

The Motion to Compel NOTICE OF MOTION AND JOINT CROSS MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY EXPERT WITNESSES filed by APL Marine Services, LTD on 08/04/2026 is Granted.

Defendant APL Marine Services, Ltd.’s (“Defendant”) and plaintiff Mario Sampot Ferrer’s (“Plaintiff”) (Defendant and Plaintiff are collectively, the “Movants”) joint Motion to Compel Expert Witnesses Jeffrey Schaeffer, Ph.D. (“Schaeffer”), Nikki Frousakis, Ph.D. (“Frousakis”), and Howard Friedman, Ph.D., ABPP (“Friedman”) (Schaeffer, Frousakis, and Friedman are collectively the “Expert Witnesses”) to produce the raw neuropsychological and psychological test data and audio recordings generated during their evaluations of Plaintiff in this action is GRANTED.

This is a maritime law personal injury action sounding in Maintenance and Cure. Plaintiff alleges that he is sailor injured on a ship known as the President Wilson as a result of a fall while the ship was in the ocean off of Busan, South Korea. Among other injuries, Plaintiff alleges that he suffered a traumatic brain injury.

As the Court understands the facts, expert witnesses Schaeffer and Frousakis are Plaintiff’s neuropsychological experts, and expert witness Friedman is Defendant’s neuropsychological expert. Each of Plaintiff’s expert witnesses and Defendant’s expert witness have conducted proprietary, highly confidential tests on Plaintiff to discover the extent of Plaintiff’s alleged traumatic brain injury. (See CCP § 2032.310 et seq.)

ANALSYSIS OF MOTION TO COMPEL

Both Defendant and Plaintiff seek to compel the other side’s Expert Witnesses to produce the raw neuropsychological and psychological test data and audio recordings generated during their evaluations of Plaintiff. As the Court understands it, each of the three Expert Witnesses has taken the position that under their ethical obligations as professional and licensed psychologists and/or neuropsychologists, they may only share the at-issue documents and recordings with the opposing, licensed neuropsychological experts and not with respective legal counsel for the parties.

Dr. Friedman in Opposition declares that he will recuse himself as an expert witness for Defendant if he is required by Court Order to produce the materials sought be produced by this Motion. Plaintiff at the pre-trial conference in this action stated to the Court that he believed that 24CV084084: FERRER vs APL MARINE SERVICES, LTD 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel NOTICE OF MOTION AND JOINT CROSS MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY EXPERT WITNESSES JEFFREY SCHAEFFER, PH.D, NIKKI FROUSAKIS, PH.D, AND HOWARD J. FRIEDMAN, PH.D, ABPP; filed by APL Marine Services, LTD (Defendant) CRS# 037092610069 in Department 512 Plaintiff’s Expert Witnesses would not recuse themselves.

Dr. Friedman filed the only Opposition to the Motion. The main evidence he provides in Opposition is a declaration signed by himself and 274 other licensed neuropsychologists practicing in California, all of whom declare that if they were retained as expert witnesses and they were required by Court Order to produce the materials sought by the present motion to attorneys, they would feel ethically obligated to recuse themselves.

The Movants cite to Randy's Trucking, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 818 as being the controlling law because the facts are materially identical to the circumstances at issue herein. The Randy’s Trucking Appellate panel found that the trial court had not abused its discretion when it ordered the defendant’s licensed neuropsychological expert witness to produce raw neuropsychological and psychological test data and audio recordings to plaintiff’s counsel and also when the trial court denied defendant’s motion for reconsideration, based on defendant’s expert witness’ declaration that she would have to recuse herself as defendant’s expert if the trial court ordered her to produce these materials to plaintiff and counsel’s declaration that two other neuropsychological experts defendant’s counsel had contacted refused to agree to serve as replacement expert witnesses for the same reason.

Dr. Friedman does not dispute the import of Randy’s Trucking, but instead points out that this Court has discretion to consider all of the evidence before it and reach a different decision than the Randy’s Trucking trial court did. Dr. Friedman also raises concerns regarding his obligations under the Business and Professions Code; however the Legislature has not taken any action on this matter, as yet, a fact that the Randy’s Trucking Court noted in its 4/26/2023 opinion. (91 Cal.App.5th at 848.)

Dr. Friedman also argues that Movants have not presented sufficient evidence to support Movants’ alleged need for their attorneys to have access to the raw test data and audio recordings. However, the moving Port Declaration at ¶¶ 5-9 appears to identify the same basis for the parties’ respective attorneys to have direct access to the materials, to effectively crossexamine the other side’s expert without having to rely on second-hand advice provided by their own expert witness(s), that the Randy’s Trucking trial court and Court of Appeal found sufficient. (91 Cal.App.5th at 838.)

Further, the Stipulated Protective Order that was entered in this action on 8/13/2026, where it requires the parties to return, destroy or delete all protected materials within sixty days of final resolution of the present litigation, appears satisfactory to protect the confidentiality of the tests pursuant to Randy’s Trucking. (91 Cal.App.5th at 828.)

The Court has considered Dr. Friedman’s declaration. However, where both parties are seeking

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV084084: FERRER vs APL MARINE SERVICES, LTD 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel NOTICE OF MOTION AND JOINT CROSS MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY EXPERT WITNESSES JEFFREY SCHAEFFER, PH.D, NIKKI FROUSAKIS, PH.D, AND HOWARD J. FRIEDMAN, PH.D, ABPP; filed by APL Marine Services, LTD (Defendant) CRS# 037092610069 in Department 512 the release of raw neuropsychological and psychological test data and audio recordings to their respective attorneys, the Court finds that the parties are entitled to production of the materials to their attorneys subject to the 8/13/2026 Stipulated Protective Order so that they may effectively cross-examine the other sides' neuropsychological experts.

Dr. Friedman points out that “raw test data” typically does not refer to the tests themselves, but that the raw test data typically includes the questions to which the test subject provides responses. All documents produced by either party’s experts shall be subject to the 8/13/2026 Stipulated Protective Order; and, to the extent that any such documents legitimately need to be filed with the Court, the Court ORDERS that all such documents shall be filed under seal. The Stipulated Protective Order and the order to file any such documents under seal should be sufficient to address the obligation to keep such information out of the general public.

Wherefore, Defendant’s and Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED.

The parties shall each serve copies of the final Order on this Motion to Compel on their respective experts within five (5) days of the date on which the final Order enters the record.

To the extent that any of the parties’ respective neuropsychological Expert Witnesses withdraw or recuse themselves as expert witnesses in this action and either party is unable to find a replacement expert witness in time for the 10/19/2026 trial date in this action, either party may file an ex parte application seeking a reasonable trial date continuance so that that party may have an opportunity to find a replacement expert.

CONTESTING TENTATIVE RULINGS

PLEASE NOTE: If any party contests the tentative ruling, the hearing on the motion will occur remotely via the court's own video-conferencing system.

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308, subdivision (a)(1), this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court unless it is contested before 4:00 PM on the court day preceding the noticed hearing date.

To contest a tentative ruling, a party should do the following:

First, the party must notify Department 512, by email at Dept512@alameda.courts.ca.gov and copy all counsel of record and self-represented parties. The contesting party must state in the subject line of the email the case name, case number and motion.

Second, the party shall log into the eCourt Public Portal, search for this case (e.g., by case

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV084084: FERRER vs APL MARINE SERVICES, LTD 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel NOTICE OF MOTION AND JOINT CROSS MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY EXPERT WITNESSES JEFFREY SCHAEFFER, PH.D, NIKKI FROUSAKIS, PH.D, AND HOWARD J. FRIEDMAN, PH.D, ABPP; filed by APL Marine Services, LTD (Defendant) CRS# 037092610069 in Department 512 number), select the case name, select the "Tentative Rulings" tab, click the "Click to Contest this Ruling" button, enter the party's name and a brief statement of the party's reason for contesting the tentative, and click "Proceed."

Parties may appear via videoconference, using the Zoom.com website or application.

TO CONNECT TO ZOOM:

Join the meeting using the following link: https://www.zoomgov.com/j/16057661931 Join the meeting by Phone:

Meeting ID: 160 5766 1931

1 669 254 5252, 16057661931# US (San Jose) 1 669 216 1590, 16057661931# US (San Jose) 833 568 8864 US Toll-free