Judge Andrew E. Cooper, Case Number: 24CHCV04355, Date: 2025-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F51, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2251. Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

APRIL 10, 2025

(Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Admission, and

Demands for Production of Documents, Set One)

Los Angeles Superior Court Case # 24CHCV04355

RESPONDING PARTY: Respondent State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Respondent”)

RELIEF REQUESTED: Orders compelling Respondent’s further responses to the following discovery requests:

· Petitioner’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 5–14, 16, and 18–33;

· Petitioner’s Requests for Admission (“RFAs”), Set One, Nos. 3–14 and 25–26; and

· Petitioner’s Demands for Production of Documents (“RFPs”), Set One, Nos. 2–17.

Petitioner also seeks monetary sanctions in the total amount of $8,000.00 to be imposed against Respondent and its counsel.

TENTATIVE RULING: Respondent to provide further responses to the following discovery requests within 30 days:

· Petitioner’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 5–14 and 24–33; and

The motion to compel Respondent’s further responses to Petitioner’s RFAs, Set One, is denied. The Court imposes sanctions against Respondent and its counsel in the amount of $800.00, payable within 45 days.

The parties are reminded to review the 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil. When e-filing documents, parties must comply with the “TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS” which are set forth at page 4, line 4 through page 5, line 12 of the Court’s 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil (particularly bookmarking declarations and exhibits). (CRC 3.1110(f)(4).)

Petitioner is reminded that all documents “must be text searchable when technologically feasible without impairment of the document's image.” (CRC 2.256(b)(3).) Additionally, the separate statement “is a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion.” (CRC 3.1345(c).)

Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in papers being rejected, matters being placed off calendar, matters being continued so documents can be resubmitted in compliance with these requirements, documents not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.

This is an insurance action by Petitioner, a driver who was injured in a 10/16/23 automobile collision, against Respondent, his auto insurance provider.

On 8/8/24, as part of arbitration proceedings between the parties, Petitioner served his first set of discovery requests on Respondent. (Decl. of Simon Y. Song ¶ 3.) On 10/7/24, Respondent served its responses thereto. (Id. at ¶ 4.)

On 11/26/24, Petitioner filed his petition. On 11/27/24, Petitioner filed the instant motions to compel further responses to the subject discovery requests. On 3/26/25, Respondent filed its oppositions thereto. On 4/3/25, Petitioner filed his replies.

Here, Petitioner seeks to compel Respondent’s additional responses to the subject discovery requests, arguing that Respondent’s responses are code-deficient and its objections without merit.

A motion to compel further discovery responses must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration stating “facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300, subd. (b)(1); 2031.310, subd. (b)(2); 2033.290, subd. (b)(1); 2016.040.)

Here, Petitioner’s counsel declares that beginning on 11/5/24, he and Respondent’s counsel met and conferred regarding the issues raised in the instant motions, but were unable to come to an informal resolution. (Song Decl. ¶¶ 5–10.) Therefore, the Court finds that counsel has satisfied the preliminary meet and confer requirements under the Civil Discovery Act.

California law requires a responding party to respond to each propounded request for admission with either a substantive answer or an objection to the particular request. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2033.210, subd. (b).) Each substantive answer must: “(1)¿Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party; (2)¿Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue; (3)¿Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.220, subd. (b).) “If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.” (Id. at subd. (c).)

A propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses to requests for admission if any of the following apply: “(1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete; or (2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.290, subd. (a).)

Here, Petitioner asserts that “Respondent’s service of further responses moots this Motion as to any order compelling service of further responses.” (Pet.’s RFA Reply 2:8–9.) Accordingly, the Court denies Petitioner’s motion to compel Respondent’s further responses to Petitioner’s RFAs, Set One.

“The party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory by any of the following: (1) An answer containing the information sought to be discovered; (2) An exercise of the party’s option to produce writings; or (3) An objection to the particular interrogatory.” (Code Civ Proc. § 2030.210, subd. (a).) “Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ Proc. § 2030.220, subd. (a).) “If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.” (Id. at subd. (c).)

A propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses to interrogatories if any of the following apply: “(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete; (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate; or (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

Here, “Petitioner brings forth this Motion on the grounds that in response to certain Form Interrogatories inquiring into: (1) Respondent’s personal injury contentions (Nos. 16.2-16.8); and (2) Respondent’s responses to Requests for Admission (No. 17.1), Respondent raised meritless objections and/or provided insufficient responses.” (Pet.’s FROG Mot. 4:5–8.) “In relevant part, in response to: (1) Form Interrogatories Nos. 16.2-16.8, Respondent stated that the claimed injuries or damages and extent thereof is currently under investigation; and (2) Form Interrogatory Nos. 17.1 for Requests for Admission Nos. 3–14 and 25–26, Respondent stated, without more, that ‘[b]ased on the current status of discovery in this matter, State Farm has answered each Request related to this Interrogatory to the extent possible.’” (Id. at 6:10–14.)

Petitioner argues that Respondent’s responses are insufficient because “it simply defies logic for Respondent to suggest that notwithstanding the amount of time that has passed since the date of Petitioner’s Policy Limit Demand, it is not required to provide any substantive responses on the grounds that these Form Interrogatories are somehow still premature.” (Id. at 8:13–16.) “If only partial answers can be supplied, the answers should reveal all information then available to the party. If Respondent still cannot furnish details, it must set forth the efforts made to secure the information.” (Id. at 8:24–26.)

In opposition, Respondent argues that “there is no basis for compelling further responses, because State Farm does not have a response at this time and certainly did not have them at the operative time, when these responses were served.” (Resp.’s FROG Opp. 2:28–3:2.) “These types of contentions require expert review of records, Claimant’s testimony regarding his claims, and depending on that testimony, possibly even a medical examination, because medical contentions, such as those requested in 16.1, through 16.6, and the underlying Requests for Admission to which 17.1 relates are beyond a response from a lay person, such as an insurance adjuster or defense counsel.” (Id. at 4:6–10.)

In reply, Petitioner argues that “as to its claim regarding expert review, Respondent essentially suggests that it can sit on this case and do nothing, as well as refuse to provide Code-compliant responses that state, at a minimum, what efforts were made (if any) to procure responsive information, until an expert reviews the file towards the latter stages of this proceeding.” (Pet.’s FROG Reply 4:15–18.) “As things currently stand, Respondent has failed to outline any investigatory efforts that were made to procure information that is responsive to” the subject interrogatories. (Id. at 6:13–14.) Petitioner further argues that “assuming that Petitioner’s medical records production was not complete, Respondent at a minimum was duty bound to provide partial responses based on the information then available to it.” (Id. at 7:4–6.)

The Court agrees with Petitioner that Respondent’s responses are incomplete and fail to comport with the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires a responding party claiming lack of personal knowledge to answer the interrogatory “to the extent possible,” and “make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organization.” (Code Civ Proc. § 2030.220, subds. (b), (c).) Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Petitioner’s motion to compel Respondent’s further responses to Petitioner’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 16.2 –16.8 and 17.1.

Here, Petitioner moves to compel Respondent’s further responses to Petitioner’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 5–14, 16, and 18–33. “Petitioner brings forth this Motion on the grounds that in response to certain Special Interrogatories inquiring into: (1) investigations concerning the subject collision; (2) Respondent’s contentions re: Petitioner’s preexisting condition(s) and injuries; (3) offer(s) of settlement; and (4) breach, voiding or failure by Petitioner to satisfy any condition precedent to the subject insurance policy, Respondent raised meritless objections and/or provided insufficient responses.” (Pet.’s SPROG Mot. 4:5–9.)

Specifically, “in response to: (1) Special Interrogatories Nos. 5-6 regarding investigations concerning the subject collision, Respondent responded in the form of objections and did not provide substantive responses; (2) Special Interrogatories Nos. 7-14 and 20-21 regarding its contentions re: preexisting conditions and Petitioner’s injuries and whether Petitioner voided the subject insurance policy respectively, Respondent raised prematurity objections and did not provide substantive responses; (3) Special Interrogatory No. 16 regarding offer(s) of settlement by Respondent, it raised a vagueness objection before providing an insufficient substantive response; (4) Special Interrogatories Nos. 18-19 regarding whether Petitioner breached the subject insurance policy, Respondent raised vagueness and ambiguity objections and did not provide substantive responses; (5) Special Interrogatories Nos. 22-23 regarding whether Petitioner failed to satisfy any condition precedent to the subject insurance policy, Respondent responded solely in the form of objections and did not provide substantive responses; and (6) Special Interrogatories Nos. 24-33 [sic] regarding its contentions re: damages and other injuries sustained by Petitioner, Respondent again raised prematurity objections and did not provide substantive responses.” (Id. at 6:11–23.)

In opposition, Respondent argues that “as indicated in the verified responses served, State Farm cannot respond to these contention Interrogatories, based on what State Farm knew when the subject Interrogatories were answered. All of the Discovery at issue in this Motion and the other three Motions, requires the assistance of a medical expert.” (Resp.’s SPROG Opp. 2:16–19.) Respondent maintains that the interrogatories were prematurely propounded and stands by its objections thereto.

In reply, Petitioner asserts that “Respondent served further responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 16 and 18-23. … Yet this belated service does not rectify the fact that [Respondent] has refused to provide further responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 5-14 and 24-33 on prematurity grounds.” (Pet.’s SPROG Reply 2:22–25.) Petitioner argues that even “giving Respondent the utmost benefit of the doubt, it strains credulity for Respondent to suggest that since July 2024, after eight (8) months and counting to conduct an investigation, it is entitled to not respond to these Special Interrogatories because they are still somehow premature.” (Id. at 4:6–9.) Petitioner further argues that even after receiving further responses, “as things currently stand, Respondent has failed to, at minimum, outline any investigatory efforts that were made to procure information that is responsive to Special Interrogatory Nos. 5-14 and 24-33.” (Id. at 7:5–7.)

The Court agrees with Petitioner that Respondent’s responses are incomplete and fail to comport with the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires a responding party claiming lack of personal knowledge to answer the interrogatory “to the extent possible,” and “make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organization.” (Code Civ Proc. § 2030.220, subds. (b), (c).) The Court further finds that Respondent’s objections based on vagueness, compound, and privilege are without merit.

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Petitioner’s motion to compel Respondent’s further responses to Petitioner’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 5–14 and 24–33.

California law requires a responding party to respond to each request for production of documents with either a statement of compliance, a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply, or an objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210, subd. (a).) If the response includes an objection to the demand in part, it must also include a statement of compliance or noncompliance as set forth above. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240, subd. (a).) Additionally, the response must (1) identify the particular document that falls within the category of the request to which the objection is being made, and (2) expressly set forth the extent of, and specific ground for, the objection. (Id. at subd. (b).)¿A propounding party may move for an order compelling further response to a discovery request if it decides that “an objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

Here, “Petitioner brings forth this Motion on the grounds that in response to certain Demands for Production seeking production of the following (regarding the subject collision where applicable): (1) the declaration page(s) for any insurance policy afforded to Petitioner; (2) the claims file; (3) documents concerning complaints for personal injuries made before or after the subject incident by Petitioner; (4) digital color photographs depicting any damage done to any vehicle involved; (5) any and all repair estimates for any vehicle involved; (6) statements; (7) photographs or surveillance taken of Petitioner at any time since the subject collision to the present; (8) documents reflecting any investigation taken by Respondent; (9) governmental entity reports; (10) charts, maps and/or diagrams depicting the scene; (11) documents or reports obtained from any insurance indexing system or any insurance bureau describing any prior claim by Petitioner; (12) documents identified in Special Interrogatory No. 6 (re: any investigation concerning the subject collision); and (13) a privilege log for any documents withheld on the basis of privilege or work product, Respondent raised meritless objections and/or provided insufficient responses and failed to produce documents that it agreed to produce.” (Pet.’s RFP Mot. 4:5–17.) “In relevant part, Respondent: (1) raised meritless objections; (2) provided incomplete and non-straightforward responses and/or refused to produce documents subject to such objections; and (3) agreed to produce documents that to date have not been produced.” (Id. at 7:9–11.)

In opposition, Respondent argues that “all materials in State Farm’s possession, custody and control were produced. For those categories State Farm did not have documents in response to, the responses were clear and in compliance with its obligations under the Code of Civil Procedure, that it had conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and was not in possession, custody and/or control of the demanded materials.” (Resp.’s RFP Opp. 2:22–26.) Respondent further argues that “even in a first party case, Claimant is not entitled to the entire claims file.” (Id. at 3:6, citing Ins. Code § 791.13.)

In reply, Petitioner asserts that “Respondent served further responses to Demand Nos. 2, 6-10 and 12-14. … Yet this belated service does not rectify the fact that Respondent also refused to provide further responses to Demand Nos. 15-17.” (Pet.’s RFP Reply 3:1–4.) Furthermore, “Respondent’s responses to Demand Nos. 4-5 and 11 fail to comply with Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.280(a), which requires Respondent to identify the documents produced with the specific demand number to which the documents respond.” (Id. at 2:21–23.) “As to Petitioner’s Demand for the claims file (No. 3), Respondent failed to provide any basis for its privilege claims until it opposed this Motion, an Insurance Code objection of which is belated and deemed waived regardless.” (Id. at 2:14–16.)

The Court agrees with Petitioner that Respondent has waived any objection based on Insurance Code 791.13. (Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1125 [“the failure to assert a specific objection waives that particular objection.”].) Even so, “per Insurance Code § 791.13(s), the insured’s lawyer is entitled to any and all information disclosed from an accident report, supplemental report, investigative report or any report from a governmental agency that the insured (Petitioner) is entitled to obtain under the Vehicle Code and Government Code.” (Pet.’s RFP Reply 4:24–27.)

“If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).) “The purpose of a ‘privilege log’ is to provide a specific factual description of documents in aid of substantiating a claim of privilege in connection with a request for document production. … The purpose of providing a specific factual description of documents is to permit a judicial evaluation of the claim of privilege.” (Hernandez v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 285, 292.) To the extent that Respondent objects to the production of any responsive documents based on a privilege, it must produce a privilege log.

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Petitioner’s motion to compel Respondent’s further responses to Petitioner’s RFPs, Set One, Nos. 3–5, 11, and 15–17.

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction … against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories [or RFPs], unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (c); Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (h).) Additionally, “the court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

Here, Petitioner requests a total combined sum of $8,000.00 in monetary sanctions to be imposed against Respondent and its counsel, which encompasses: (1) 2 hours of Petitioner’s attorney’s time spent drafting each motion; (2) an anticipated 1 hour reviewing each of Respondent’s oppositions; (3) an anticipated 1 hour preparing each reply; and (4) an anticipated 1 hour attending each hearing, at counsel’s hourly billing rate of $400.00 per hour. (Song Decl. ¶ 12.) In granting the instant motions, the Court finds it reasonable to award Petitioner monetary sanctions in the amount of $800.00 against Respondent and its counsel.

Respondent to provide further responses to the following discovery requests within 30 days:

· Petitioner’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 5–14 and 24–33; and

The motion to compel Respondent’s further responses to Petitioner’s RFAs, Set One, is denied.

The Court imposes sanctions against Respondent and its counsel in the amount of $800.00, payable within 45 days.