Motion for Leave in Novak, Christopher et al vs. Thompson, Gregory et al| Trellis.Law

On February 02, 2022 a Motion-Secondary was filed involving a dispute between Christopher Novak, Ginnelle Novak, and City Of Roseville, Gregory Thompson, for Civil-Roseville in the District Court of Placer County.

Preview
DEL RIO & CARAWAY, P.C.
Daniel R. Del Rio (SBN 237968)
Charles D. Caraway (SBN 289360)
Matthew D. Engebretson (SBN 231994)
2335 American River Drive, Suite 200
Sacramento, California 95825
Telephone: (916) 378-4705
Facsimile: (916) 378-4706

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER

CHRISTOPHER NOVAK, individually, and Case No.: S-CV-0047960
as Guardian Ad Litem for COOPER NOVAK,
a minor, and GINNELLE NOVAK, DECLARATION OF DANIEL R. DEL
RIO IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S
Plaintiffs, OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
v. CONDUCT THE MENTAL
EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF
CITY OF ROSEVILLE, GREGORY
THOMPSON, and DOES 1| to 50, inclusive, Hearing Date: April 18, 2024
Hearing Time: 8:30 A.M.
Defendants. Dept.: 3

Complaint Filed: February 2, 2022
Trial Date: January 27, 2025

I, DANIEL R. DEL RIO, hereby declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney at law, duly licensed to practice before all the courts of the State

of California. I am a partner with the law firm of Del Rio & Caraway, P.C., attorneys for Plaintiff,

GINNELLE NOVAK (hereinafter “Plaintiff”). I have personal knowledge of this litigation and I

have directly participated in discovery in this matter.

2. The information contained in this declaration is true of my own personal

knowledge, unless stated otherwise, and if called upon to do so, I could and would competently

testify thereto.

///

///
-l-
DECLARATION OF DANIEL R. DEL RIO IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT THE MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF
3. On January 21, 2021, Plaintiffs were coming to a stop due to a yellow traffic signal

when Defendant Thompson, during the course and scope of his employment for Defendant City

of Roseville, failed to stop and collided with the rearend of Plaintiffs’ vehicle. As a result of the

collision, Plaintiff Chris Novak sustained injuries to his head, neck, shoulders, back, arms, and

legs. Plaintiff Chris Novak was diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury and suffered from

numerous other cognitive injuries attributable to the subject incident prior to his death on July 21,

2023, including two strokes. Plaintiff Ginnelle Novak sustained injuries to her head, neck,

shoulders, back, and hips. Plaintiff Ginelle Novak was diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury

and post-traumatic stress disorder. Plaintiff Cooper Novak is autistic and non-verbal so the extent

of his injuries due to the subject incident are most likely under reported; however, Plaintiff Cooper

Novak has exhibited neck pain and significant behavioral changes. Plaintiff Cooper Novak was

diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury that has greatly exacerbated his autism behaviors. Plaintiff

Cooper Novak was in the back seat during the subject incident and most likely sustained a greater

impact than Plaintiffs Chris and Ginnelle Novak so his injuries are far more likely to be under

reported than those previously diagnosed.

4. January 6, 2023, Plaintiff and Defendant reached an agreement in having a

neurologist and neuropsychologists evaluate Plaintiffs. See Exhibit 5 for a true and correct copy

of correspondence between counsel for the parties.

5. January 6, 2023, Defendant agreed that the Independent Medical Examinations

would be designated by both defendants, CITY OF ROSEVILLE, and GREGORY THOMPSON.

See Exhibit 5 for a true and correct copy of correspondence between counsel for the parties.

6. On January 30, 2023, Defendants designated the Dr. Friedman for the

neuropsychological examination.

m1. On February 21, 2023, after a meeting and conferring, Dr. Friedman through

Defense Counsel Nick Pancharian, agreed to audio recording the medical examination, but not to

video recording. See Exhibit 5 for a true and correct copy of correspondence between counsel

for the parties.

///
,-
DECLARATION OF DANIEL R. DEL RIO IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT THE MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF
8. On February 28, 2023, Defendants served Plaintiffs Chris and Ginelle Novak with

a Demand for a Neuropsychological Examination with Dr. Howard J. Friedman. See Exhibit 1

for a true and correct copy of Defendants’ Demand for a mental examination.

9. On March 27, 2023, Plaintiffs Chris and Ginnelle Novak served objections to

Defendants’ Demand for a Neuropsychological Examination. See Exhibit 2 for a true and correct

copy of Plaintiffs’ objections to Defendants’ Demand for a mental examination.

10. On April 28, 2023, at my direction while away from the office, my paralegal, Vicki

Tsverov, called Defense Counsel and advise them that Plaintiffs had double booked themselves

for an appointment and would not be able to attend the noticed IME with Dr. Friedman.

11. On April 28, 2023, Defense Counsel’s assistant Ms. Segoviano, followed up the

phone call with and email stating that the plaintiffs must attend the noticed IMEs. See Exhibit 5

for a true and correct copy of correspondence between counsel for the parties.

12. On April 28, 2023, Defense Counsel William Camy, replied to a conversation with

my partner, Charles D. Caraway, stating “If the doctor imposes a cancellation fee, the City is

going to insist that Plaintiffs pay it given the circumstances. But, hopefully that does not become

an issue.” See Exhibit 5 for a true and correct copy of correspondence between counsel for the

parties.

13. On May 5, 2023, Defendants served Plaintiffs Chris and Ginelle Novak with an

Amended Demand for a Neuropsychological Examination. See Exhibit 3 for a true and correct

copy of Defendants’ amended Demand for a mental examination.

14. On May 30, 2023, Plaintiffs Chris and Ginnelle Novak served objections to

Defendants’ Amended Demand for a Neuropsychological Examination. See Exhibit 4 for a true

and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ objections to Defendants’ amended Demand for a mental

examination.

15. OnJuly 28, 2023, I attempted to met and conferred concerning the parameters of

the mental examination; however, the parties were unable to come to an agreement. See Exhibit

5 for a true and correct copy of correspondence between counsel for the parties.

///
- 3b
DECLARATION OF DANIEL R. DEL RIO IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT THE MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF
16. I objects to the parameters for taking Plaintiff's mental examination because

Plaintiff suffers from a traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder with associated

conditions that will affect the conduct of the mental examination.

17. Subjecting Plaintiff to a mental examination will only cause Plaintiff to

unnecessarily exert herself, frustration, emotional distress, depression, suicidal ideation, and more

likely than not trigger a traumatic response that will halt the neuropsychological examination.

18. I am sincerely concerned for Plaintiff's mental and physical wellbeing and the

effects that Defendants’ mental examination could have on Plaintiff including but not limited to

provoking and aggravating Plaintiff's anguish to such a degree that Plaintiff's condition may

regress and exacerbate her disassociation and suicidal tendencies.

19. On December 8, 2023, Plaintiff notified Defendant of Plaintiff's death via email.

See Exhibit 5 for a true and correct copy of correspondence between counsel for the parties.

20. On February 26, 2024, Defendant served Plaintiff with the “...recently submitted”

“ invoice...for the cancellation fees.” See Exhibit 5 for a true and correct copy of

correspondence between counsel for the parties.

21. attempted to meet and overwhel regarding the cancellation fees as Plaintiffs are

not patients of Dr. Friedman. See Exhibit 5 for a true and correct copy of correspondence between

counsel for the parties.

22. On March 21, 2024, Defendant served their Notice to the instant motion. See

Exhibit 5 for a true and correct copy of correspondence between counsel for the parties.

23. On April 2, 2024, Defendant further states in a further meet and confer effort that

« _. is not going to eat the more than $10,000 in costs...”. See Exhibit 5 for a true and correct

copy of correspondence between counsel for the parties.

24. Plaintiff has had a history, since the death of her husband, of becoming

overwhelmed, shutting down, and refusing to continue medical treatments. See Exhibit 6 for a

true and correct copy of Plaintiff's pertinent medical records.

///

///
-4-
DECLARATION OF DANIEL R. DEL RIO IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT THE MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF
25. | offered to stipulate to a protective order wherein the documents and material
would
requested would only be used for purposes of this case, that the documents and materials

not be disseminated to the public, and that all parties would take all reasonable steps to maintain

confidentiality of the documents and materials produced. See Exhibit 5.

26. On April 5, 2024, Defense Counsel informed Plaintiff, that “The doctor has offered
ent to
to compromise the amount of the requested sanction by 50% in exchange for the commitm

pay it now before we get a ruling.” See Exhibit 5.

27. Ihave opposed Motions for Leave to conduct the mental examinations in other
These
counties, including Sacramento County Superior Court and Contra Costa Superior Court.
answers,
sister counties have ordered the production of all reports, tests, instructions, protocols,
s’ policies,
notes, observations, scoring materials, test materials, test validity documents, publisher
of prior
and raw data be produced directly to myself. See Exhibit 7 for a true and correct copy

minute orders in sister counties.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on April 5, 2024, at
foregoing

Sacramento, California.

DEL RIO & CARAWAY, P.C.

DANIEL R. DEL RIO, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiffs

-5-
TO
DECLARATION OF DANIEL R. DEL RIO IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION
EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT THE MENTAL
EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT 1|
1
2 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
William E. Camy, SBN 291397
3 Nicholas A, Pancharian, SBN 335329
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
4 Sacramento, California 95825
5 TEL: 916.929.1481
FAX: 916.927.3706
6 wcamy@porterscott.com
npancharian@porterscott.com
7 Attorneys for Defendants
CITY OF ROSEVILLE and GREGORY THOMPSON
8
Exempt from filing fee pursuant to Government Code section 6103
9
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF PLACER
11
12 CHRISTOPHER NOVAK, individually, and as Case No.: S-CV-0047960
Guardian Ad Litem for COOPER NOVAK, a
13 minor, and GINNELLE NOVAK,
14 Plaintiff, NOTICE OF INDEPENDENT MEDICAL
EXAMINATION
15 vs.
16 CITY OF ROSEVILLE, GREGORY
THOMPSON, and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive
17
Defendants.
18
19 / Complaint filed: 2/2/2022

20 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
21 At the time, date, and place indicated below, Defendants CITY OF ROSEVILLE and GREGORY
22 THOMPSON are requesting Plaintiff Ginnelle Novak to appear and make herself available for an
23 Independent Medical Exam (“IME”) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2032.020 et.
24 seq.
25 EXAMINEE: Ginnelle Novak
26 DATE: May 2, 2023
27 TIME: 8:30 a.m.
28 IME LOCATION: 1855 San Miguel Drive, Suite 23, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
4896-0588-8595, v. 1 1

NOTICE OF INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION
1 CONDUCTED BY: Dr. Howard J. Friedman, Ph.D., ABPP
2 If the exam is not completed on said date, the taking thereof will be continued from day to day
3 thereafter at the same time and place, excluding Sundays and legal holidays, until completed.
4 The length of the examination will be approximately eight hours, from 8:30 a.m. until approximately
5 5:30 p.m. The time is an estimate, and the examination may be longer, especially if there are any disruptions
6 by Plaintiff or her representative.
7 This will be a medical examination as permitted by California Code of Civil Procedure section
8 2032.020 et seq. The medical examination will be a standard neurological evaluation
9 This will consist of a lengthy interview and the administration of neuropsychological testing. The
10 interview portion will follow the standards in neuropsychology in which a complete psychosocial,
11 educational, vocational, and medical, and legal history will be obtained. Any interview regarding plaintiff’s
12 “legal history” will be limited to the “legal history” excluding this lawsuit. The history of present illness will
13 be discussed as well as Plaintiff’s current complaints and treatment. The testing will consist of the
14 administration of standardized neuropsychological tests designed to evaluate multiple neurocognitive
15 domains as well as psychological functioning. Both neurocognitive testing and psychological testing are
16 critical as one cannot fully evaluate neurocognitive issues without also evaluating psychological issues that
17 may affect cognition. These procedures are consistent with the standards in the field of neuropsychology and
18 necessary to enable Dr. Friedman to form complete opinions about the nature and extent of Plaintiff’s
19 injuries, need for treatment, and prognosis. The time to complete the examination varies from person-to-
20 person, however, Dr. Friedman estimates that 8-9 hours, excluding breaks, will be needed for Plaintiff’s
21 examination. Dr. Friedman will ensure that Plaintiff has ample breaks to rest, eat, and use the restroom.
22 Please see Sharff v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1955) 44 Cal. 2d 508. Plaintiff will not be subjected
23 to any invasive, improper, or painful examination or testing.
24 The various evaluation tests which could be used include:
25 • Test of Pre-Morbid Functioning
26 • Green’s Word Memory Test
27 • The b Test
28 • Test of Memory Malingering
4896-0588-8595, v. 1 2

NOTICE OF INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION
1 • Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV
2 • Green’s Non-Verbal Medical Symptom Validity Test
3 • Wide Range Achievement Test-5
4 • Rey Complex Figure
5 • Judgment of Line Orientation
6 • Trail Making Test
7 • Ruff 2 & 7 Selective Attention Test
8 • Stroop Color and Word Test
9 • Digit Vigilance Test
10 • Controlled Word Association Test
11 • Animal Naming
12 • Wechsler Memory Scale-IV
13 • California Verbal Learning Test-2
14 • Neuropsychological Assessment Battery (Naming, Mazes subtests)
15 • Wisconsin Card Sorting Test
16 • Tower of London
17 • Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-RF
18 • Personality Assessment Inventory
19 • Battery for Health Improvement-2
20 • Trauma Symptom Inventory-2-A
21 • Rorschach Performance Assessment System
22 Dr. Friedman may audio record the examination if he deems appropriate. Dr. Friedman will audio
23 record the examination if the examination is audio recorded by Plaintiff or one of Plaintiff’s representatives.
24 Video recording any portion of the examination will not be permitted.
25 Dr. Friedman is a Licensed Psychologist with the California Board of Psychology. He holds multiple
26 Board Certifications. His examination will be conducted for the purpose of determining the current and future
27 state of Plaintiff’s mental and cognitive condition as it relates to the allegations which are the subject of this
28 litigation.
4896-0588-8595, v. 1 3

NOTICE OF INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION
1 Dr. Friedman imposes a cancellation fee of $5,200.00 for any cancellations made with less than one
2 week notice. Failure to appear at the above location on the date and time specified above, or to give at least
3 one week notice of cancellation to the doctor shall result in plaintiff being held responsible for any charges,
4 including travel time by the doctor as a result of the failure to show or insufficient cancellation notice.
5
6 Dated: February 28, 2023 PORTER SCOTT
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
7
8
9 w
10 By:
William E. Camy
11 Nicholas A. Pancharian
Attorney for Defendants
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4896-0588-8595, v. 1 4

NOTICE OF INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION
CASE NAME: Novak v. City of Roseville, et al.
1
CASE NO.: S-CV-0047960
2 PROOF OF SERVICE
I am a resident of the United States and of the County, of Sacramento, California. I am over the
3 age of eighteen years and not a party to the within above-entitled action. My business address is 350
University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, California.
4
I am familiar with this Company's practice whereby the mail, after being placed in a designated
5 area, is given the appropriate postage and is deposited in a U.S. mailbox in the City of Sacramento,
California, after the close of the day's business.
6 That on the date below, I served the following: NOTICE OF INDEPENDENT MEDICAL
EXAMINATION on all parties in the said action as addressed below by causing a true copy thereof to be
7 served:
8
xx BY MAIL: I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I
9 am readily familiar with this business’ practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing.
On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary
10 course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
□ Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, Article #
11 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such document to be personally delivered to the person(s)
addressed below. (1) For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made to the attorney or at the
12 attorney’s office by leaving the documents, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the
attorney being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office, between the hours of
13 nine in the morning and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving
the documents at the party’s residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the
14 hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening.
BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an
15 overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) listed below. I placed the envelope or package
for collection and overnight delivery at my office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery
16 carrier.
xx BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service
17 by electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic notification
address listed below.
18
19 Addressed as follows:
20 Daniel R. Del Rio
DEL RIO & CARAWAY, P.C.
21 2335 American River Drive, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825
22 daniel@delriolawoffice.com
23 cj@delriolawoffice.com
vicki@delriolawoffice.com
24
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
25 true and correct. Executed at Sacramento, California on February 28, 2023.

26
___________________________________
27
Evelyn Segoviano
28
4896-0588-8595, v. 1 5

NOTICE OF INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION
1 poB?EB I SCOT T
2 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
William E. Camy, SBN 291397
3 Nicholas A, Pancharian, SBN 335329
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
4 Sacramento, Califomia 95825
TEL:916.929.1481
5
F AX: 916.927 .3706
6 cott.com
npancharian@oorterscott.com
7 Attomeys for Defendants
CITY OF ROSEVILLE and GREGORY THOMPSON
8
Exemp fmm filing fee punuant to Govenment Code sec.tion 6103
9

l0
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF PLACER
l1
t2 CHRISTOPHER NOVAK. individuallv- and as Case No.: S-CV-0047960
Guardian Ad Litem for COOPER NOVAK, a
13 minor, and GINNELLE NOVAK,
t4 Plaintifl NOTICE OF TNDEPENDENT MEDICAL
EXAMINATION
l5 VS

l6 CITY OF ROSEVILLE, GREGORY
THOMPSON, and DOES I to 50, inclusive
t7
Defendants.
18

l9
20 ;Hr2/u2022
21 At the time, date, and place indicated below, Defendants CITY OF ROSEVILLE and GREGORY
22 THOMPSON are requesting Plaintiff Christopher Novak to appear and make himself available for an
23 Independent Medical Exam ("IME') pursuant to Califomia Code of Civil hocedure Section 2032.020 et.
24 seq.

25 EXAMINEE: Christopher Novak
26 DATE: May 1,2023
27 TIME: 8:30 a.m.
28 IME LOCATION: 1855 San Miguel Drive, Suite 23, Walnut Creek, CA 94596

4872-5E58-5683. v. 1 1

NOTICE OF INDEPENDE.\*T NtEDICAL EXAll|INATION
I CONDUCTED BY: Dr. Howard J. Friedman, Ph.D., ABPP
2 If the exam is not completed on said date, the taking thereof will be continued from day to day
3 thereafter at the same time and place, excluding Sundays and legal holidays, until completed.

4 The length of the examination will be approximately eight hours, from 8:30 a.m. until approximately

5 5:30 p.m. The time is an estimate, and the examination may be longer, especially if there are any disruptions

6 by Plaintiff or his representative.
7 This will be a medical examination as permitted by Califomia Code of Civil Procedure section
8 2032.020 et seq. The medical examination will be a standard neurological evaluation

9 This will consist of a lengthy interview and the administration of neuropsychological testing. The
l0 rnterview portion will follow the standards in neuropsychology in which a complete psychosocial,
il educational, vocational, and medical, and legal history will be obtained. Any interview regarding plainti{Ps
t2 "legal history" will be Iimited to the "legal history" excluding this lawsuit. The history of present illness will

l3 be discussed as well as Plaintiffs current complaints and treafirent. The testing will consist of the
t4 administration of standardized neuropsychological tests designed to evaluate multiple neurocognitive

l5 domains as well as psychological functioning. Both neurocognitive testing and psychological testing are

l6 critical as one cannot fully evaluate neurocognitive issues without also evaluating psychological issues that

t7 may affect cognition. These procedures are consistent with the standards in the field of neuropsychology and

l8 necessary to enable Dr. Friedman to form complete opinions about the nature and extent of Plaintilfs
19 injuries, need for treaEnent, and prognosis. The time to complete the examination varies from penron-to-

20 person, however, Dr. Friedman estimates that 8-9 hours, excluding breaks, will be needed for Plaintiffs

2t examination. Dr. Friedman will ensure that Plaintiff has ample breaks to rest, eat, and use the restroom.

22 Please see Slrarl v. Supertor Court of San Francisco (1955) 44 Cal. 2d 508. Plaintiff will not be subjected
23 to any invasive, improper, or painful examination or testing.

24 The various evaluation tests which could be used include;

25 o Test of Pre-Morbid Functioning

26 o Green's Word Mernory Test

27 r The b Test

28 r Test of Memory Malingering

4E72-5858-5683, v. 1

NOTICE OF INDEPENDENT ]UEDICAL EXAMINATION
I e Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV

2 r Green's Non-Verbal Medical Symptom Validity Test

3 . Wide Range Achievement Test-s
4 o Rey Complex Figure

5 . Judgment of Line Orientation

6 o Trail Making Test
7 o RuIf2 & 7 Selective Attention Test
8 . Stroop Color and Word Test

9 . Digit Vigilance Test
l0 o Controlled Word Association Test

l1 e Animal Naming
t2 o Wechsler Memory Scale-[V

t3 o Califomia Verbal Leaming Test-2
t4 . Neuropsychological Assessment Battery (Naming, Mazes zubtests)

l5 r Wisconsin Card Sorting Test

16 o Tower oflondon
17 o Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-RF

l8 . Personality Assessment Inventory

l9 o Battery for Health Improvement-2

20 o Trauma Slmptom Inventory-2-A

2l o Rorschach Performance Assessment System

22 Dr. Friedman may audio record the examination if he deems appropriate. Dr. Friedman will audio
23 record the examination ifthe examination is audio recorded by Plaintiffor one ofPlaintiffs representatives.
24 Video recording any portion of the examination will not be permitted.

25 Dr. Friedman is a Licensed Psychologist with the Califomia Board of Psychology. He holds multiple

26 Board Certifrcations. His examination will be conducted for the purpose of determining the current and future

27 state ofPlaintifPs mental and cognitive condition as it relates to the allegations which are the subject ofthis
28 litigation.

4872-5858-5683, v. 1

NOTICE OF INDEPENDENT NTEDICAL EXANII\ATION
I Dr. Friedman imposes a cancellation fee of$5,200.00 for any cancellations made with less than one

2 week notice. Failure to appear at the above location on the date and time specified above, or to give at least

3 one week notice ofcancellation to the doctor shall result in plaintiffbeing held responsible for any charges,

4 including travel time by the doctor as a result of the failure to show or insufficient cancellation notice.

6 Dated: February 28,2023 PORTER SCOTT

7
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

9
u-7
l0 By:
William E. Camy
ll Nicholas A. Pancharian
Attomey for Defendants
t2
l3
l4
l5
l6
17

l8
l9
20

2l
22

4872-5858-5683, v. 1
4

NOTICE OF INDEPEi\iDENT illEDICAL EXAMINATION
CASE NAME: Novah w City of Roseville, et aL
I
CASE NO.: S-CV-0047960
2 PROOF OF SERVICE
I am a resident of the United States and of the County, of Sacramento, Califomia. I am over the
J age of eighteen years and not a party to the within above-entitled action. My business address is 350
University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, Califomia.
4
I am familiar with this Company's practice whereby the mail, after being placed in a designated
5 area, is given the appropriate postage and is deposited in a U.S. mailbox in the City of Sacramento,
Califomia, after the close ofthe day's business.
6 That on the date below, I served the followrns: NOTICE OF INDEPENDENT MEDICAL
EXAUINATION on all parties in the said action as addressed below by causing a true copy thereof to be
7 served:

8
xx BYMAIL: I placcd the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I
9 am readily familiar with this business' practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing.
On thc same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary
l0 course ofbusiness with the United States Posral Service, in a sealed cnvelope with postage fully prepaid.
o Certifled MaiURetum Receipt Requested, Article #
1l BY PERSONAL SERVICET I caused such document to be personally delivered to the person(s)
addrcssed below. (l) For a party reprcsented by an attomey, delivery was made to the attomey or at the
t2 attomey's office by leaving the documents. in an envelope or package clearll' labeled to identify the
attomey being served, with a receptionist or an individual in chargc of the office, between the hours of
l3 nine in the moming and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving
the documents at the pan)'s residence with some person not younger than IE yeals ofage between the
t4 hours ofeight in the moming and six in the evening.
BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an
15 ovemight delivery carrier and ad&essed to the person(s) listed below. I placed the envclope or package
for collection and ovemight delivery at my office or a regularly utilized drop box ofthe ovemight delivery
l6 carrier.
xx BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service
t7 by elechonic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the el€ctronic notification
ad&ess Iisted below.
l8
l9 Addressed as follows:
20 Daniel R. Del Rio
DEL RIO & CARAWAY, P.C.
2l 2335 American River Drive, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825
22
daniel@delriolawoffi ce.com
23 ci@delrio ffrce.com
vicki@.delriolawof fi ce.com
24
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the foregoing is
25 true and correct. Executed at Sacrameoto, Califomia on February 28, 2023.

26
So+ou,a,w
27 -/44P
i@;n#;^.
28

4872'5858-5683. v. 1
l

NOTICE OF INDEPENDENT IIEDICAL EXAi\II\ATION
I POBTEn I SCOT T
2 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
William E. Camy, SBN 291397
3 Nicholas A" Pancharian, SBN 335329
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
4 Sacramento, California 95 825
TEL: 916.929.1481
5
F AX: 915.927 .37O6

6 wcamy@porterscott.com
npancharian@.porterscott.com
7 Attomeys for Defendants
8
CIryOF ROSEVILLE and CREGORY THOMPSON
Exemp fmm filing fee pursaant to Government Code section 6103
9

l0
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF PLACER
ll
t2 CHRISTOPHER NOVAK- individuallv. and ; Case No.: S-CV-0047950
Cuardian Ad Litem for COOPER tt'Ovnf,
l3 minor, and GINNELLE NOVAK,
14 Plaintifl NOTICE OF INDEPEIVDENT MEDTCAL
EXAMINATION
l5 VS.

l6 CITY OF ROSEVILLE, GREGORY
THOMPSON, and DOES I to 50, inclusive
t7
Defendants.
18

19 Complaint fi led: 2/2/ 2022

20 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD3
2l At the time, date, and place indicated below, Defendants CITY OF ROSEVILLE and GREGORY
22 THOMPSON are requesting Plaintiff Ginnelle Novak to appear and make herself available for an
23 lndependent Medical Exam ("IME") pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2032.020 et.

24 seq.

25 EXAMINEE: Ginnelle Novak
26 DATEz May2,2O23
27 TIME: 8:30 a.m.
28 IME LOCATION: 1855 San Miguel Drive, Suite 23, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
,1896{588.8595, v. 1 I

NOTICE OF INDEPENDENT }IEDICAL EXAMI\ATION
I CONDUCTED BY: Dr. Howard J. Friedman, Ph.D., ABPP
2 If the exam is not completed on said date, the taking thereof will be continued from day to day

3 thereafter at the same time and place, excluding Sundays and legal holidays, until completed.

4 The length of the examination will be approximately eight hours, from 8:30 a.m. until approximately

5 5:30 p.m. The time is an estimate, and the examination may be longer, especially if there are any disruptrons

6 by Plaintiff or her representative.
1 This will be a medical examination as perrnitted by California Code of Civil Procedure section
8 2032.020 et seq. The medical examination will be a standard neurological evaluation

9 This will consist of a lengthy interview and the administration of neuropsychological testing. The
l0 interview portion will follow the standards in neuropsychology in which a complete psychosocial,

l1 educational, vocational, and medical, and legal history will be obtained. Any interview regarding plaintiffs
t2 "legal history" will be limited to the "legal history" excluding this lawsuit. The history of present illness will
l3 be discussed as well as Plaintiffs current complaints and treahnent. The testing will consist of the
t4 administration of standardized neuropsychological tests designed to evaluate multiple neurocognitive

15 domains as well as psychological functioning. Both neurocognitive testing and psychological testing are

t6 critical as one cannot firlly evaluate neurocognitive issues without also evaluating psychological issues that

t7 may affect coqnition. These procedures are consistent with the standards in the field ofneuropsychology and

l8 necessary to enable Dr. Friedman to form complete opinions about the nature and extent of Plaintifls
t9 injuries, need for treatment, and prognosis. The time to complete the examination varies from person-to-

20 person, however, Dr. Friedman estimates that 8-9 hours, excluding breaks, will be needed for PlaintifPs

21 examination. Dr. Friedman will ensure that Plaintiff has ample breaks to rest, eat, and use the restroom.

22 Please see Sharff v. Superior Court of San Francisco ( 1955) 44 Cal. 2d 508. Plaintiff will not be subjected

23 to any invasive, improper, or painful examination or testing.

24 The various evaluation tests which could be used include:

25 r Test of Pre-Morbid Functiomng

26 o Green's Word Memory Test

27 o The b Test

28 r Test of Memory Malingering

48S6-0588€595, v. 1

NOTICE OF INDEPENDENT ITTEDICAL EXANIINATION
I r Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-ry

2 . Green's Non-Verbal Medical Slmptom Validity Test

J o Wide Range Achieveme[t Test-s
4 o Rey Complex Figure

5 o Judgment of Line Orientation

6 o Trail Making Test
7 r Ruff2 & 7 Selective Attention Test

8 o Stroop Color and Word Test

9 . Digit Vigilance Test
l0 r Controlled Word Association Test

ll r Animal Naming
l2 r Wechsler Mernory Scale-[V

l3 o Califomia Verbal Learning Test-2
14 r Neuropsychological Assessment Battery (Narning, Mazes subtests)

l5 o Wisconsin Card Sorting Test

l6 o Tower oflondon
t7 o MinnesotaMultiphasic Personalitytnventory-2-RF
l8 e Personality Assessment Inventory

l9 o Battery for Health Lnprovement-2

20 o Trauma Symptom lnventory-2-A

2t o Rorschach Performance Assessment System

22 Dr. Friedman may audio record the examination if he deems appropriate. Dr. Friedman will audio
,1 record the examination ifthe examination is audio recorded by Plaintiffor one of Plaintiffs representatives.
24 Video recording any portion of the examination will not be permitted.

25 Dr. Friedman is a Licensed Psychologist with the Califomia Board of Psychology. He holds multiple
26 Board Certifications. His examination will be conducted for the purpose ofdetermining the current and future

27 state of Plaintiffs mental and cognitive condition as it relates to the allegations which are the subject of this
28 litigation.

4E9SO588{595, v. I 3

NOTICE OF INDEPENDENT I\IEDICAL EXALITNATION
1 Dr. Friedman imposes a cancellation fee of $5,200.00 for any cancellations made with less than one

2 week notice. Failure to appear at the above location on the date and time specified above, or to give at least

3 one week notice ofcancellation to the doctor sball result in plaintiff being held responsible for any charges,

4 including travel time by the doctor as a result ofthe failure to show or insufficient cancellation notice.
5

6 Dated: February 28,2023 PORTER SCOTT
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
7

9
ar-7
l0 By:
William E. Camy
ll Nicholas A. Pancharian
Attorney for Defendants
t2
l3
t4
l5
l6
l7
l8
l9
20

4896-0588-8s95. v. 1 4

NOTICE OF INDEPENDENT |ltEDICAL EXANIINATION
CASE NAME: Novak v. City of Roseville, et al.
I
CASE NO.: S-CY-0047960
2 PROOF OF SERVICE
I am a resident of the United States and of the County, of Sacramento, Califomia. I am over the
3 age of eighteen years and not a party to the within above-entitled action. My business address is 350
University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, Califomra.
4
I am familiar with this Company's practice whereby the mail, after being placed in a designated
5 area, is given the appropriate postage and is deposited in a U.S. mailbox in the City of Sacramento,
Califomia, after the close of the day's business.
6 That on the date below. I served the followine: NOTICE OF INDEPENDENT MEDICAL
EXAMINATION on all panies in the said action as ad&essed below by causrng a true copy thereof to be
7 served:

8
xx BY MAIL; I placed the ervelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I
9 am readily familiar with this business' practice for collecting and processing correspondence lor mailing.
On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary
l0 course ofbusiness with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
E Certified Mail/Retum Receipt Requested, Article #
ll BY Pf,RSONAL SERVICE: I caused such document to be personally delivered to the person(s)
addressed below. (1) For a pady represented by an attomey, deliv€Ty was made to the attomey or at thc
t2 attomcJ-'s omce by leaving the documents, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the
attomey bcing served. with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office, between thc hours of
l3 nine in the morning and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving
the documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than l8 years ofage between the
l4 hours of eisht in the momins and six in the evening.
BY OVERNICHT DELMRY: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an
l5 ovemighl delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) listed below. I placed the envelope or package
for collection and ovemight delivery at my office or a regularly utilized drop box ofthe ovemight delivery
l6 carrier.
xx BV ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Bas€d on a cou( order or an agreement ofthe parties to accept service
17
by glectronic tBnsmission, I caused the documonts to be sent to the persons at the electronic notification
address listed below.
l8
l9 Addressed as follows:
20 Daniel R. Del Rio
DEL zuO & CARAWAY, P.C.
2l 2335 American River Drive, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825
22
daniel@delrio lawoffice.com
23 ci@delriolawoffi ce.com
vicki@delriolawollice.com
24
I declare under penalty ofpedury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the foregoing is
25 true and correct. Executed at Sacramento, Califomia on February 28,2023.

27
Ev yn segovlano
28

4896{588-8595. v. 1
)
NOTICE OF INDEPENDENT IlIEDICAL EXAIITINATION
EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT 2
2
1 DEL RIO & CARAWAY, P.C.
Daniel R. Del Rio (SBN 237968)
2 Charles D. Caraway (SBN 289360)
Matthew D. Engebretson (SBN 231994)
3 2335 American River Drive, Suite 200
Sacramento, California 95825
4 Telephone: (916) 378-4705
Facsimile: (916) 378-4706
5
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
6

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER

11 CHRISTOPHER NOVAK, individually, Case No. S-CV-0047960
and as Guardian Ad Litem for COOPER
12 NOVAK, a minor, and GINNELLE PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO
NOVAK, DEMAND FOR
13 NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL
Plaintiffs, EXAMINATION
14
v.

15
CITY OF ROSEVILLE, GREGORY
16 THOMPSON, and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive,

17 Defendants.

19 TO DEFENDANT AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

20 Plaintiff, GINNELLE NOVAK, will comply with the demand and appear for the examination

21 scheduled for May 2, 2023, at 8:30 a.m. with Howard J. Friedman, Ph.D., ABPP, located at 1855 San

22 Miguel Drive, Suite 23, Walnut Creek, CA 94596, with the following modifications:

23 1. All interactions with the Plaintiff will be audio recorded including the entire examination

24 and any interviews pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.530(a). The audio recording may

25 be conducted by a mutually agreed upon person or Plaintiff will arrange for someone to be present to

26 operate the recording decisive in a non-intrusive and non-disruptive manner.

27 2. No other person

Case Info

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

April 05, 2024

Case Filing Date

February 02, 2022

County

Parties

Camy, William Ernest Porter Scott Attorneys for Defendants
Christopher Novak Plaintiff
Christopher Novak GAL for Cooper Novak Guardian Ad Litem
City of Roseville Defendant
Cooper Novak Minor
DelRio, Daniel Ramon Del Rio & Carichoff, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Ginnelle Novak Plaintiff
Gregory Thompson Defendant
Megan Boelter Attorneys for Defendants
Charles Caraway Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Matthew Engebretson Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Nicholas Pancharian Attorneys for Defendants
Victoria Geary Attorney
William Cashman Attorneys for Defendants

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion-Secondary: Novak, Christopher et al vs. Thompson, Gregory et al

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties