Request for Order (RFO) for vocational evaluation; Motion to Seal; Request for Medical Examination
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 May 7, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.
11. DEENA UTLEY V. KENNETH UTLEY 24FL0820
Respondent filed a Request for Order (RFO) on February 19, 2026, seeking an order for Petitioner to undergo a vocational evaluation. Respondent requests the court order Petitioner to bear the cost of the evaluation solely. Petitioner was served by mail on February 24, 2026.
Petitioner filed a Responsive Declaration on April 15, 2026. Respondent was served electronically on April 15, 2026. Petitioner objects to the request to undergo a vocational evaluation at her own expense. Petitioner asserts, and has included exhibits documenting, that she has been found by the Social Security Administration to be permanently disabled. Further, Petitioner is 62 years old and in poor health. As such, Petitioner asserts it would be inappropriate and wasteful for the court to order a vocational evaluation.
Respondent filed a Reply Declaration on April 28, 2026. It was served the same day. Respondent reiterates his request for a vocational evaluation and brings an additional request for a Defense Medical Examination under Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.320. Respondent has included exhibits as attachments, which include unredacted bank statements.
Petitioner filed an Objection on April 29, 2026. Respondent was served the same day. Petitioner objects to the court considering Respondent's request for a medical examination, as it is beyond the scope of the original RFO. Further, Petitioner requests the unredacted bank statements contained in Respondent’s exhibit be placed under seal.
Respondent filed an Amended Reply on April 30, 2026 along with a Request to Seal the original Reply, due to the unredacted bank statements. The Amended Reply includes the statements with the appropriate redactions.
The court has read and considered the filings as outlined above. The court grants the request to seal the original Reply Declaration filed on April 28th due to the unreacted bank statements. The court grants the request for the vocational evaluation. Petitioner shall participate in a vocational evaluation as requested by Respondent. Respondent is directed to pay for the evaluation, subject to reallocation.
The court denies Respondent’s request for a Medical Examination pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2032.320. The court finds the request to be beyond the scope of the original RFO and therefore, it is being denied without prejudice.
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 May 7, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
All prior orders not in conflict with this order remain in full force and effect. Respondent is directed to prepare the Findings and Orders After Hearing (FOAH); however, this order is effective immediately upon the court’s adoption of the tentative ruling and is not conditioned on the preparation of the FOAH.
TENTATIVE RULING #11: THE COURT GRANTS THE REQUEST TO SEAL THE ORIGINAL REPLY DECLARATION FILED ON APRIL 28TH DUE TO THE UNREACTED BANK STATEMENTS. THE COURT GRANTS THE REQUEST FOR THE VOCATIONAL EVALUATION. PETITIONER SHALL PARTICIPATE IN A VOCATIONAL EVALUATION AS REQUESTED BY RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT IS DIRECTED TO PAY FOR THE EVALUATION, SUBJECT TO REALLOCATION. THE COURT DENIES RESPONDENT’S REQUEST FOR A MEDICAL EXAMINATION PURSUANT TO CODE CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 2032.320. THE COURT FINDS THE REQUEST TO BE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE ORIGINAL RFO THEREFORE THE REQUEST IS BEING DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
ALL PRIOR ORDERS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THIS ORDER REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. RESPONDENT IS DIRECTED TO PREPARE THE FINDINGS AND ORDERS AFTER HEARING (FOAH); HOWEVER, THIS ORDER IS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UPON THE COURT’S ADOPTION OF THE TENTATIVE RULING AND IS NOT CONDITIONED ON THE PREPARATION OF THE FOAH.
NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD UNLESS A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IS TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE COURT’S WEBSITE OR BY PHONE CALL TO THE COURT AT (530) 621-6725 BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07; SEE ALSO LEWIS V. SUPERIOR COURT, 19 CAL.4TH 1232, 1247 (1999). NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AND THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH ARGUMENT IS BEING REQUESTED MUST BE MADE BY PHONE CALL OR IN PERSON BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07.