In what circumstances will a plaintiff be able to recover consequential emotional distress damages?

In so concluding, we do not mean to be understood to endorse the recovery of consequential emotional distress damages as a matter of course. (See, e.g., Fuentes v. Perez (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 163, 169 ["it has been the judicial experience that while emotional distress is but 'part of the human condition' and frequently the product of 'trivialities and mere bad manners' of others, it will occasionally result in profound . . . consequences . . . . [California] will ordinarily deny judicial relief, but will nevertheless afford it in extreme cases and where reason dictates that it be granted."].) But, to reiterate, we deal at this juncture only with the allegations of the amended complaint, not with the reality behind them. Viewing the allegations as true, as we must, we are unable to say the claim for consequential emotional damages cannot stand as a matter of law.⁴ It was thus error to grant the motion to strike those portions of the prayer for relief.

3.Were the challenged discovery rulings an abuse of discretion?