Thomas Knowlton v. Henry Speeth

Case No.: CV67334

Case Title: Thomas Knowlton v. Henry Speeth

Case Type: Personal Injury/Vehicle collision

Hearing Type: Motion to Compel IME

This is a personal injury action arising out of a vehicle accident. This matter was originally set for a hearing on defendant’s Motion to Compel and a CMC on August 28, 2026, wherein plaintiff’s attorney appeared, but defendant’s attorney did not. This matter was continued to September 11, 2026, for further hearing.

Moving Argument

The defendant filed a motion to compel plaintiff’s attendance at an independent medical examination with a neuropsychologist. Defendant’s motion seeks an order that plaintiff appear at the examination, that the exchange of testing data be directly between defendant’s expert neuropsychologist and plaintiff’s neuropsychological expert and any audio recording of the IME be limited to the clinical interview and not encompass any recording of the actual test administration phase.

Opposing Argument

Plaintiff opposes the motion to compel arguing that the plaintiff be allowed to audio record the examination and that the raw data be provided to counsel. Plaintiff’s position is that a standard protective order is sufficient to protect the exchange of data materials and requests monetary sanctions against defense counsel pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.220.

Reply Argument

Defense contends the court has wide discretion under Randy’s Trucking, Inc. v. Superior Court (2023) 91 C.A.5th 818 to order that raw data be exchanged between licensed experts and limit the audio recording.

Appearance at the Neuropsychological Exam and Audio Recording by Plaintiff

The parties agree plaintiff will undergo a neurological examination but disagree regarding plaintiff’s ability to audio record the examination. Defendant requests the audio recording of the IME be limited to the clinical interview and not encompass any recording of the actual test administration phase. CCP section 2032.530(a) provides that the “examiner and examinee shall have the right to record a mental examination by audio technology.” Carpenter v. Superior Court (2006) 141 C.A. 4th 249, 271. Further, the Legislature did not impose restrictions on the audio recording and therefore plaintiff has an express statutory right to record the entire examination.

The Court GRANTS the request and orders plaintiff appear at the neurological examination, time and date to be determined by the parties.

The Court DENIES the motion that the audio recording be limited to the clinical interview and not encompass any recording of the actual test administration.

Exchange of Testing Data

Defendant seeks a court order that the exchange of testing data be directly between plaintiff and defendant’s licensed neurological experts and not to plaintiff’s counsel. Defendant argues a standard protective order is insufficient because the test is dependent on the examinee not having access to what the test measures or how it detects noncredible performance. Defendant further argues that providing raw data to plaintiff’s counsel will create several harms in that counsel could further disseminate the material, remember details about the test that could benefit future clients, or allow other unlicensed individuals access to the data.

The language of Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.610(a)(1) provides that a plaintiff submitting to a mental examination has the right to demand the defendant deliver “a copy of a detailed written report setting out the history, examinations, findings, including the results of all tests made, diagnoses, prognoses, and conclusions of examinations.” Additionally, Randy’s Trucking, Inc. v. Superior Court (2023) 91 C.A. 5th 818, dealt with very similar facts and held the superior court did not abuse its discretion in compelling the disclosure of raw testing data pursuant to a protective order. The appellate court also rejected the argument that the disclosure should be made only to each side’s

selected expert, given that the attorney must “possess more than a second-hand understanding of the information being scrutinized.” (Id. at p. 838.)

Randy’s Trucking also made it clear the court has discretion regarding ordering the exchange of the raw data to be provided directly to the attorneys and in exercising such discretion, the record before the court should set forth the legitimate reasons plaintiff needs the raw data. The court does not find sufficient information in the record to allow it to exercise its discretion. HEARING REQUIRED. Counsel should be prepared to address these issues at the hearing.

Sanctions

Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.250 of $2,500 for the amount of counsel time responding to the motion. The code requires imposition of monetary sanctions unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make imposition of the sanction order unjust. Plaintiff has not yet created a record outlining his legitimate need for the raw data and therefore defendant appears to have acted with substantial justification in filing the motion.

The motion is DENIED.