## Facts

- Katherine Vinson sued a community college district and an official, alleging sexual harassment in a job interview, followed by retaliatory job actions and termination.
- She sought damages for serious and continuing emotional injuries, including ongoing emotional distress, sleep loss, and anxiety.
- Defendants moved to compel a psychiatric/psychological examination under California Code of Civil Procedure § 2032 to evaluate her emotional-distress claims.
- The superior court granted the motion without limiting the exam’s scope, refused to restrict inquiry into sexual history, and barred Vinson’s counsel from attending the examination.
- Vinson sought writ relief challenging the unlimited scope of the exam and the exclusion of counsel.

## Issues

1. Whether alleging serious, continuing emotional distress places a plaintiff’s mental condition “in controversy” permitting a compelled mental examination under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2032.
2. Whether an ordered psychiatric examination may include unrestricted inquiry into the plaintiff’s sexual history, habits, and practices, given the state constitutional right to privacy.
3. Whether the plaintiff has a right to have counsel present during a compelled psychiatric examination.

## Decision

- The court held that Vinson’s allegations of serious and continuing emotional distress placed her mental condition “in controversy,” permitting a psychiatric examination in principle.
- The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering an unlimited examination; the exam had to be limited by protective orders to safeguard privacy, particularly as to sexual-history inquiry absent specific justification.
- The court held that Vinson’s counsel was not entitled to be present during the psychiatric examination.
- The court granted writ relief in part, directing the superior court to allow the examination subject to appropriate scope restrictions and to exclude counsel from the examination room.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff who seeks damages for serious, ongoing mental or emotional injury generally places her mental condition “in controversy,” making a compelled mental examination an available discovery device under § 2032.
- Even when a mental condition is in controversy, discovery orders must be tailored and cannot authorize open-ended intrusions into constitutionally protected privacy interests.
- Courts must balance the need for discovery against the intrusiveness of the information sought, and may require protective orders limiting questioning, including limits on sexual-history inquiries unless directly justified by the claims and defenses.
- A party does not forfeit all privacy protections by alleging emotional distress; waiver is limited to what is reasonably necessary to litigate the asserted mental-injury claims.
- There is no automatic right for counsel to attend a compelled psychiatric examination; concerns about improper questioning should be addressed through defining scope, protective orders, and later evidentiary or sanction remedies.

## Conclusion

The court permitted a compelled psychiatric examination because the plaintiff’s continuing emotional-distress claims placed her mental condition in controversy, but required the trial court to restrict the exam’s scope to protect privacy—especially regarding sexual history—and held that counsel had no right to be present during the examination.


Vinson v. Superior Court, 43 Cal. 3d 833 (Cal. 1987)