Ruby-Lynn Ragasa Idmilao vs. Sharif Davlatberki

34-2022-00317395-CU-PA-GDS: Ruby-Lynn Ragasa Idmilao vs. Sharif Davlatberki 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Neurological Independent Medical Examinations in Department 16C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Please take notice, Department 54 has moved to Department 16C at the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse. The new courthouse is located at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Amazon Logistics, Inc.’s (“Defendants”) motion to compel neurological independent examinations of Plaintiffs Ruby-Lynn Ragasa Idmilao and Tylor Christopher West (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) is ruled upon as follows.

Overview

This is a consolidated action arising from a multi-vehicle motor vehicle accident that occurred on May 21, 2021. In their first amended complaint, Plaintiffs allege that they were driving southbound on the SR 99, approximately 817 feet north of Arno Road, at the time of the accident. (First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), ¶ 16.) Defendant Sharif Davlatberki (“Davlatberki”) was driving southbound on the Road directly behind Plaintiffs in a 2016 Freight Tractor Truck. (Id., ¶ 18.) Davlatberki failed to stop and collided with Plaintiffs’ vehicle at a high rate of speed. (Id., ¶ 19.) Davlatberki was operating a tractor owned by Tojikon Inc.; the tractor was pulling an Amazon load which Amazon had tendered to Mixa Transportation LLC. (See Declaration of Wayne R. Stevenson (“Stevenson Decl.”), ¶ 5.)

Plaintiffs allege that the injuries caused by the accident “have greatly impaired their health, strength, and activity and have thereby caused and continue to cause them great mental, physical and nervous pain and suffering and an extreme shock to their nervous system. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that said injuries will result in some disability to them.” (FAC, ¶¶ 29, 35.) Plaintiffs further allege that they were “required to, and did employ, and continue to employ, physicians and others for medical care of said injuries, and did incur medical and incidental expenses in an amount according to proof. . . . Plaintiffs are informed, and thereon allege, that they will incur further medical and incidental expenses for the care and treatment of said injuries.” (Id., ¶¶ 30, 36.)

Trial in this matter is currently set for August 24, 2026.

34-2022-00317395-CU-PA-GDS: Ruby-Lynn Ragasa Idmilao vs. Sharif Davlatberki 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Neurological Independent Medical Examinations in Department 16C

Defendant moves for an order compelling Plaintiffs to submit to a neurological examination by Dr. Steve McIntire, MD, who will conduct an examination of Plaintiffs’ head, concussion, traumatic brain injury, and any other areas potentially involved as may be determined based upon complaints of Plaintiffs, using the following methods and diagnostic tests: clinical examination and patient history. (Proposed Order at p. 1:23-5.)

Plaintiffs filed an omnibus opposition to the instant motion as well as Defendant’s motion to compel a neuropsychological examination by Dr. Henderson, set for hearing concurrently with the instant motion.

With respect to the examination by Dr. McIntire, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant entered into a valid stipulation that would limit Dr. McIntire’s inquiry into Plaintiffs’ medical history or areas that are protected by Plaintiffs’ right to privacy. Therefore, Plaintiffs contend that Dr. McIntire’s examination should be limited to a physical examination only. Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the motion should be denied because Defendant failed to file a separate statement as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(6).

In reply, Defendant argues that there is no such stipulation, as no stipulation was ever filed with the Court or entered into the Court’s minutes as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 283, subdivision 1. Defendants further argue that even if such a stipulation was entered, its terms were indefinite and there was no mutual understanding between the parties. Defendant contends that it interpreted Plaintiffs’ limitation to mean that Dr. McIntire would not inquire into Plaintiffs’ medical history regarding areas which are protected by the right to privacy, specifically the medical history of any body parts or injuries not at issue in the litigation.

Legal Standard

Civil discovery by physical and mental examination is governed by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2032.010 through 2032.650. (Carpenter v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 249 258-59.) “As a general matter, a defendant may obtain a physical or mental examination of the plaintiff, in accordance with those provisions, if the plaintiff has placed his or her physical or mental condition in controversy.” (Id., citing Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2032.020, subd. (a), 2032.310.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.220, subdivision (a) allows:

In any case in which a plaintiff is seeking recovery for personal injuries, any defendant may demand one physical examination of the plaintiff, if both of the following conditions are satisfied:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00317395-CU-PA-GDS: Ruby-Lynn Ragasa Idmilao vs. Sharif Davlatberki 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Neurological Independent Medical Examinations in Department 16C

(1) The examination does not include any diagnostic test or procedure that is painful, protracted, or intrusive.

(2) The examination is conducted at a location within 75 miles of the residence of the examinee.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.310, subdivision (a), “[i]f any party desires to obtain discovery by a physical examination other than that described in Article 2 (commencing with Section 2032.210), or by a mental examination, the party shall obtain leave of court.” The motion must state the time, place, identity and specialty of the examiner, and the “manner, conditions, scope and nature of the examination.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.310, subd. (b).) The court shall grant a motion for a mental examination under section 2032.310 “only for good cause shown.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.320, subd. (a).) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.310, subd. (b).)

“An order granting a physical or mental examination shall specify the person or persons who may perform the examination, as well as the time, place, manner, diagnostic tests and procedures, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.320, subd. (d).)

Discussion

Before addressing the merits of this motion, the Court must note three procedural issues. First, the Court notes that Defendant’s notice of motion is defective. Code of Civil procedure section 2032.310, subdivision requires that “A motion for an examination under subdivision (a) shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination, as well as the identity and the specialty, if any, of the person or persons who will perform the examination.” Here, Defendant only includes the required information in its proposed order.

Nevertheless, Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion on this basis. Therefore, any objection based on defective notice is waived. (Tate v. Superior Court (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 925, 930 ['It is well settled that the appearance of a party at the hearing of a motion and his or her opposition to the motion on its merits is a waiver of any defects or irregularities in the notice of the motion']; Reedy v. Bussell (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1272, 1289 ['if the party appears at the appropriate hearing and opposes the motion on the merits – but without making any request for a continuance or demonstrating prejudice from the defective notice, the issue is waived'].)

Second, Defendant fails to clearly state whether it is moving pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.220 or section 2032.310. The Court notes that section 2032.220 authorizes only one

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00317395-CU-PA-GDS: Ruby-Lynn Ragasa Idmilao vs. Sharif Davlatberki 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Neurological Independent Medical Examinations in Department 16C

physical examination of the Plaintiff. It is unclear from the moving papers, but it appears that Plaintiffs have already submitted to one orthopedic physical examination by Dr. Winter. (See, generally, Declaration of Wayne Stevenson (“Stevenson Decl.”), Ex. H.) Thus, the Court presumes Defendant moves for additional examinations pursuant to Section 2032.310.

Third, although California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(6) requires a separate statement for a “medical examination over objection,” the Court concludes that Defendant has sufficiently set forth the factual nature of the dispute and that Plaintiffs were able to provide a substantive opposition. The Court will exercise its discretion to consider the merits of the motion notwithstanding Defendant’s failure to include a separate statement as required by Rule 3.1345(a)(6).

With respect to the merits, it appears the parties have sufficiently met and conferred in connection with the instant motion. (Stevenson Decl., Exs. G, H, I.) The Court finds that Defendant has demonstrated good cause for an order compelling Plaintiffs to submit to an examination. (Id., Ex. A, at p. 9:3-11:27; Ex. B, at p. 9:11-12:16.) Indeed, Plaintiffs do not object to submitting to an examination, but merely object to the scope of the examination’s inquiry into their medical history.

The Court agrees with Defendant that the parties did not enter into an enforceable stipulation or agreement regarding the scope of Dr. McIntire’s examination. Plaintiffs’ sole legal citation in support of this argument, In re Marriage of Hahn (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1236, 1238, concerns a factual situation in which the parties reached a stipulation in open court. No such event occurred here, and Plaintiffs offer no additional legal authority that would support their contention that the tentative agreements reached by the parties during the meet and confer process constitute a binding stipulation.

However, Defendant failed to provide sufficiently specific information regarding the medical history Dr. McIntire would require to complete his examination. Indeed, Defendant provides no declaration from Dr. McIntire that would support its general assertion that he “needs to understand Plaintiff’s pre-accident baseline, whether Plaintiff suffered similar injuries or symptoms prior to the incident, and the progression of Plaintiff’s injuries and symptoms” in order to properly render an opinion. (Reply at p. 4:5-7.)

As a result, and in light of the arguments presented, the Court will order Dr. McIntire’s neurological examination of Plaintiffs to proceed on the condition that his inquiry in the Plaintiffs’ medical history is strictly limited to questions regarding each Plaintiff’s “head, concussion, traumatic brain injury” as identified in the proposed order.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00317395-CU-PA-GDS: Ruby-Lynn Ragasa Idmilao vs. Sharif Davlatberki 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Neurological Independent Medical Examinations in Department 16C

Plaintiffs do not oppose any of the other conditions of the examination set forth in Defendants’ proposed order.

Finally, Plaintiffs’ request for reimbursement of $800 in late cancellation fees for the services of a nurse practitioner as a result of Defendant’s cancellation of Dr. McIntire’s previously scheduled examination is denied. Plaintiffs present no legal authority that would support an award of the requested expenses.

Disposition

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED as set forth above.

The parties are ordered to meet and confer on a mutually agreeable date for the neurological examination to take place, but they shall take place no later than July 1, 2026.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

Moving party’s notice of motion does not provide full notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving party is directed to contact Plaintiffs’ counsel and advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving party is unable to contact Plaintiffs’ counsel prior to hearing, moving party is ordered to appear at the hearing.

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00317395-CU-PA-GDS: Ruby-Lynn Ragasa Idmilao vs. Sharif Davlatberki 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Neurological Independent Medical Examinations in Department 16C

telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3087 7014. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.