Vinson Allows Such Inquiries During Discovery.
Where a plaintiff in a wrongful termination suit puts his/her medical condition into controversy, Vinson v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.3d 833 (1987) held that an IME/psychological exam was fair game because this condition was at issue in the suit.
In like vein, Acting Justice Rylaarsdam on behalf of a 3-0 panel in Cashman v. SWH Corp., Case No. G044531 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 26, 2011) (unpublished) sustained discovery sanctions of a little over $6,500 against plaintiff and his attorney when plaintiff refused to answer questions about prior stressors in an employment case. Vinson was found on point so as to uphold the sanctions award.
Plaintiff challenged the sanctions award against his attorney. Although there were standing problems with this attack, the appellate court found that seeking these sanctions through the memorandum of points and authorities was adequate notice that they were being sought against the attorney. (Contrast In re Marriage of Fuller, 163 Cal.App.3d 1070, 1077 (1985) [nothing in notice, pleading, declaration, or memorandum indicated that sanctions targeted against a particular litigant].)
BLOG OBSERVATION–Although this was an appeal from a sanctions grant, co-contributor Mike remembers his days of practicing in Los Angeles County Superior Court where many judges would deny sanctions request outright against an attorney or other litigant unless the sanctions request was made in the Notice of Motion as well as highlighted in the caption of the Motion request (even if the request was contained elsewhere, such as in a supporting memorandum).