243 Cal. App. 4th 138
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Jonnie Roe, a minor plaintiff, sued Hollister School District and employees alleging sexual molestation at school; John Roe is guardian ad litem and Jane Roe is mother and co-plaintiff on some claims.
- Defendants moved for an independent mental examination of Jonnie by a psychiatrist (Dr. Kuo) and psychologist (Dr. Hall); the superior court granted the motion and ordered collateral interviews of Jonnie’s parents.
- The superior court’s order authorized specified psychological tests of Jonnie, prohibited third‑party observers during the exams, and required audiotaping; it limited parental interviews to matters directly relevant to Jonnie’s claimed symptoms and barred inquiry into the parents’ mental states.
- Petitioners sought writ relief asking the appellate court to vacate the portion of the order compelling parental collateral interviews, to permit the guardian to attend Jonnie’s exam, and to require production of written tests and Jonnie’s raw answers/results.
- The Court of Appeal stayed and then granted a peremptory writ to vacate the order only insofar as it authorized collateral interviews of Jonnie’s parents; issues about observer presence were rendered moot; the court declined to order production of raw test materials at this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Code Civ. Proc. §2032.020 authorizes collateral interviews of a minor’s parents as part of a minor party’s court‑ordered mental examination | Roe: parental interviews are not authorized by §2032.020 and court exceeded its authority | School District: collateral parental interviews are permissible and implicitly authorized as necessary under professional standard of care for examiner | Court: §2032.020 lists three exclusive categories (party, agent, person in custody/control); parents here are neither agents nor in custody/control, so statute does not authorize compelled parental interviews; order vacated on that point |
| Whether the examining party must produce written test materials and the minor’s raw answers/results under §2032.610 | Roe: “results of all tests made” includes raw test data and written test materials; analogize to criminal discovery (Pen. Code §1054.3) and Woods/Hajek holdings on raw test disclosure | School District: will provide statutorily required report; object to producing copyrighted test materials and raw data absent further order or authority | Court: §2032.610 requires delivery of examiner’s report (findings/results) but does not clearly compel disclosure of raw test instruments or examinee’s raw answers; petitioners failed to show the superior court had a duty to order production in the writ proceeding and have statutory remedies (motion to compel under §2032.620 or appeal) |
Key Cases Cited
- Vinson v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.3d 833 (Cal. 1987) (a party who alleges mental/emotional difficulties places mental state in controversy)
- Reuter v. Superior Court, 93 Cal.App.3d 332 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979) (statute did not permit psychiatric testing of a plaintiff collateral to examination of another plaintiff)
- Cruz v. Superior Court, 121 Cal.App.4th 646 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (statutory categories for examinations are exclusive; courts lack power to order discovery beyond statutes)
- Woods v. Superior Court, 25 Cal.App.4th 178 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (criminal pretrial disclosure of raw results of psychological tests that defense intends to offer at trial)
- People v. Hajek and Vo, 58 Cal.4th 1144 (Cal. 2014) (discusses disclosure under Penal Code §1054.3 and cites Woods)
- People v. Cornett, 53 Cal.4th 1261 (Cal. 2012) (principles of statutory interpretation and reliance on plain language)