LANDRUM vs CITY OF OAKLAND, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al.

25CV110685: LANDRUM vs CITY OF OAKLAND, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al. 05/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel NEUROPSYCH IME OF PLAINTIFF AND FOR FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER LIMITING DISSEMINATION OF DATA TO NEUROPSYCHOLOGISTS INVOLVED IN CASE CRS# 365900079332 in Department 20

Tentative Ruling - 05/26/2026 Karin Schwartz

The Hearing on Motion to Compel NEUROPSYCH IME OF PLAINTIFF AND FOR FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER LIMITING DISSEMINATION OF DATA TO NEUROPSYCHOLOGISTS INVOLVED IN CASE CRS# 365900079332 scheduled for 05/27/2026 is continued to 07/15/2026 at 03:00 PM in Department 20 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse.

THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE OPINION WAS PUBLISHED BUT NOT ADOPTED.

DEFENSE REQUESTED AN OPPORTUNITY TO FILE A REPLY BRIEF.

Any reply brief shall be filed at least 10 days prior to the hearing date.

_________________________________________________________________ Defendant City of Oakland’s unopposed Motion to Compel and for Protective Order is GRANTED IN PART.

Plaintiff Suzan Cohen Landrum filed a complaint on February 11, 2025 against Defendant City of Oakland for (1) Dangerous Condition of Public Property; and (2) Negligence. Plaintiff alleges that she tripped and fell over jagged raised asphalt on April 24, 2023 at the Wood Street Commons, a homeless encampment in Oakland, California. (Compl. ¶¶ 12-14.) Plaintiff alleges that she suffered injuries as a result of her fall, including a fractured nose, injuries to her left wrist and hand, low back, right shoulder, chest, concussion, and a traumatic brain injury. (Compl. ¶ 15.) Plaintiff further alleges that she suffers from a chronic headache, knee pain, and cognitive deficiencies as a result of the traumatic brain injury. (Compl. ¶ 16.)

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff to submit to a neuropsychological defense medical examination (“DME”) to be conducted by Christine Naber, Ph.D, without preconditions. Defendant further requests a protective order to limit the production and dissemination of audio recordings, raw neuropsychological test data, score reports, and other protected examination materials generated by the DME, such that the materials will be transmitted exclusively to Plaintiff’s designated licensed neuropsychologist expert, subject to a confidentiality protocol and destruction obligation at the resolution of this litigation. Plaintiff objected to the notice of DME. (Matei Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. B.)

The matter was originally set for hearing on May 13, 2026. The Court continued the hearing in light of a late Opposition filed by Plaintiff, due to issues with service of the moving papers.

It is the policy of the Legislature that discovery is preferred over trial by surprise, and in a 25CV110685: LANDRUM vs CITY OF OAKLAND, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al. 05/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel NEUROPSYCH IME OF PLAINTIFF AND FOR FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER LIMITING DISSEMINATION OF DATA TO NEUROPSYCHOLOGISTS INVOLVED IN CASE CRS# 365900079332 in Department 20 discovery motion, the court must construe facts liberally in favor of discovery. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 540.) A civil litigant’s right to discovery is broad, and he or she may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action if it is either itself admissible or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Id. at p. 541.)

The City establishes good cause for Plaintiff to submit to the DME. Plaintiff alleges neuropsychological injuries as a result of her trip and fall incident. The City submits the sworn declaration of Dr. Naber, which includes the notice of DME, identifying the scope of the testing that will be performed on Plaintiff. (Naber Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A.) The City further submits the sworn declaration of Catherine Marreiro, PhD., ABPP-CN, a board-certified clinical neuropsychologist and licensed psychologist. Dr. Marreiro’s declaration addresses concerns regarding the release of protected test materials to non-psychologists, such as Plaintiff’s counsel, under a general protective order, in the interests of safeguarding test security and validity.

At the May 13, 2026 hearing, the Court advised the parties that, for reasons stated on the record, on review of a courtesy copy of plaintiff's counsel's declaration and authorities such as Randy's Trucking, Carpenter v. Superior Court, and Evidence Code § 721, the Court would be inclined to grant the motion in part, but to direct that in the absence of a retained expert, the audio and raw data be provided to Plaintiff’s counsel. The Court is not inclined, however, to tie an IME medical professional's hands by precluding history-taking. Production would be pursuant to a protective order; all copies to be destroyed at end of case; any additional parameters proposed by Defendant.

Parties were ordered to meet and confer to resolve the issue. However, the Court is not in receipt of any further filings indicating that meet and confer occurred or resolution was reached.

Based upon the record before the Court, the Court GRANTS IN PART the motion to compel. In the absence of Plaintiff retaining a neuropsychologist expert, all audio recording, raw data, and testing material of the examination must be provided to Plaintiff’s counsel to permit meaningful cross-examination at deposition and/or trial.

The parties are encouraged to enter into a stipulated protective order regarding the production of records relating to the IME, pursuant to the concerns stated in the declarations submitted with the moving papers.