Haniff v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County
9 Cal. App. 5th 191
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2012 petitioner Mohammed Haniff, an OnTrac package driver, was seriously injured on Stanford University property and has not returned to work; he sued Hohman, Kim, and Stanford for personal injuries including claimed wage loss and loss of earning capacity.
- Defendants Hohman and Kim sought to compel Haniff to submit to a vocational rehabilitation examination by their vocational expert to evaluate his employability and earning capacity.
- Haniff objected, arguing the Civil Discovery Act does not authorize a defense vocational rehabilitation (nonphysician) examination; he relied on Browne v. Superior Court.
- The Santa Clara Superior Court granted the motion and ordered the examination. Haniff petitioned for a writ of mandate in the Court of Appeal, which issued a temporary stay and heard briefing and argument.
- The Court of Appeal held that the Civil Discovery Act (Code Civ. Proc. §2019.010) lists six exclusive discovery methods and does not authorize compelled nonphysician vocational rehabilitation exams; it therefore granted a peremptory writ directing the trial court to vacate its order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defendant may compel a plaintiff to undergo a vocational rehabilitation exam (by a nonphysician) as a method of civil discovery | Haniff: §2019.010 enumerates exclusive discovery methods and does not include vocational rehab exams; compelling such an exam exceeds statutory authority | Hohman/Kim: broader discovery scope under §2017.010 and inherent/due process powers permit the exam; other jurisdictions allow it | The Court: §2019.010’s six listed methods are exclusive; a defense vocational rehabilitation exam is not authorized and the trial court abused its discretion; remedy is for the Legislature |
Key Cases Cited
- Emerson Electric Co. v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.4th 1101 (Cal. 1997) (courts may not expand discovery methods beyond those the Legislature authorizes)
- Browne v. Superior Court, 98 Cal.App.3d 610 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979) (trial court abused discretion in ordering nonphysician vocational exam; such methods require legislative authorization)
- Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California, 55 Cal.4th 747 (Cal. 2012) (abuse of discretion review limits: a court exceeds discretion when it transgresses governing legal principles)
- Lee v. Superior Court, 177 Cal.App.4th 1108 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (distinguishable; addressed disclosure in civil-commitment SVPA context and statutory authority under that statutory scheme)
- Baqleh v. Superior Court, 100 Cal.App.4th 478 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (civil discovery rules apply to competency/special proceedings and courts cannot expand discovery beyond statutory authorization)