Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 22STCV36095, Date: 2024-12-04 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SMCDEPT71@lacourt.org. Do not click on the email address, either copy and paste it or type it into your email. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.

            If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect. If the moving party fails to appear and/or submit to the Court’s tentative ruling, the Court will take the matter off calendar.

            Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.

If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.

Defendant Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’s motion to compel Plaintiff Hayk Mirimanyan to provide responses to its Special Interrogatories (Set One) is denied.

Defendant Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’s request for monetary sanctions on the motion to compel responses for its Special Interrogatories (Set One) is granted in the reduced amount of $970.00 against Plaintiff Hayk Mirimanyan and his counsel, Champion Law Firm, jointly and severally. Sanctions are payable within 20 days.

Defendant Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’s motion to compel Plaintiff Hayk Mirimanyan provide responses to its Request for Production (Set One) is granted. Plaintiff Hayk Mirimanyan is ordered to provide responses and produce documents without objections within 20 days.

Defendant Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’s request for monetary sanctions on the motion to compel responses for its Request for Production (Set One) is granted in the reduced amount of $970.00 against Plaintiff Hayk Mirimanyan and his counsel, Champion Law Firm, jointly and severally. Sanctions are payable within 20 days.

Defendant Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’s request for monetary sanctions on the motion to deem truth of any matters specified in Requests for Admission (Set One) admitted against Plaintiff Hayk Mirimanyan is granted in the reduced amount of $970.00 against Plaintiff Hayk Mirimanyan and his counsel, Champion Law Firm, jointly and severally. Sanctions are payable within 20 days.

Plaintiff Hayk Mirimanyan’s motion to compel further responses from Defendant Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club to his Request for Production of Documents (Set One) is denied.

Plaintiff Hayk Mirimanyan’s request for sanctions on his motion to compel further responses from Defendant Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club to his Request for Production of Documents (Set One) is denied.

Defendant Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff Hayk Mirimanyan on his motion to compel further responses from Defendant Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club to his Request for Production of Documents (Set One) is denied.

Plaintiff Hayk Mirimanyan’s motion to compel further responses from Defendant Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club to his Form Interrogatories (Set One) is granted. Defendant Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club is ordered to provide Code-compliant responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) within 20 days of this ruling.

Plaintiff Hayk Mirimanyan’s request for sanctions on his motion to compel further responses from Defendant Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club to his Form Interrogatories (Set One) is denied.

Plaintiff Hayk Mirimanyan’s motion to compel further responses from Defendant Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club to his Special Interrogatories (Set One) is denied.

Plaintiff Hayk Mirimanyan’s request for sanctions on his motion to compel further responses from Defendant Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club to his Special Interrogatories (Set One) is denied.

Defendant Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff Hayk Mirimanyan and his counsel of record, Champion Law Firm, jointly and severally, on his motion to compel further responses from Defendant Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club to his Special Interrogatories (Set One) is granted in the reduced amount of $520.00. Sanctions are payable within 20 days of this ruling.

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff to provide responses to its Special Interrogatories (Set One) (“SROG”). (Notice MTC SROG, pgs. 1-2; C.C.P. §2030.290.) Defendant also requests an award of sanctions against Plaintiff and/or his counsel, Champion Law Firm, in the amount of $1,620.00. (Notice MTC SROG, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§2023.030, 2030.290.)

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff to provide responses to its Request for Production (Set One) (“RFP”). (Notice MTC RFP, pgs. 1-2; C.C.P. §2031.300.) Defendant also requests an award of sanctions against Plaintiff and/or his counsel in the amount of $1,620.00. (Notice MTC RFP, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§2023.030, 2031.300.)

Defendant moves to deem the truth of any matters specified in Requests for Admission (Set One) (“RFA”) admitted against Plaintiff. (Notice Motion RFA, pgs. 1-2; C.C.P. §2033.280(b).) Defendant also requests an award of sanctions against Plaintiff and/or his counsel in the amount of $1,620.00. (Notice of Motion RFA, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§2023.030, 2030.300, 2033.280(b).)

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses from Defendant to his Request for Production of Documents (Set One) (“RFP”) Nos. 2 and 3. (Notice MTCF RFP, pgs. 1-2; CRC, Rule 3.1345.) Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $788.00. (Notice MTCF RFP, pg. 2.)

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses from Defendant to his Form Interrogatories (Set One) (“FROG”) Nos. 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 14.1, 16.1, 16.7, 16.8, and 50.2. (Notice MTCF FROG, pg. 1; CRC, Rule 3.1345.) Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $518.00. (Notice MTCF FROG, pg. 2.)

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses from Defendant to his Special Interrogatories (Set One) (“SROG”). (Notice MTCF SROG, pgs. 1-2; CRC, Rule 3.1345.) Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $2,633.00. (Notice MTCF SROG, pg. 2.)

On December 15, 2023, Defendant propounded FROG on Plaintiff. (Decl. of Moutes-Lee ¶¶2-3, Exh. A.) Plaintiff’s verified responses were initially due on January 16, 2024, and Defendant granted Plaintiff multiple extensions to respond. (Decl. of Moutes-Lee ¶4.) On March 14, 2024, Plaintiff served unverified responses on Defendant, which largely consisted of objections and evasive responses. (Decl. of Moutes-Lee ¶¶4-5, Exh. B.) Defendant now moves to compel responses to the FROG.

Defendant’s motion to compel responses is denied. Plaintiff provided Defendant with late, verified responses on November 14, 2024. (Opposition, Exh. B; see Decl. of Nielsen ¶¶20-21.)

Defendant requests monetary sanctions totaling $1,620.00 against Plaintiff and/or his counsel. The Court awards sanctions pursuant to C.C.P. §2030.290(c) in the reduced amount of $970.00, calculated as follows:

The sanctions are payable by Plaintiff and his attorney, jointly and severally, within 20 days of this order.

Having reviewed Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses from Plaintiff to Defendant’s SROG, the Court rules as follows.

On December 15, 2023, Defendant propounded SROG on Plaintiff. (Decl. of Moutes-Lee ¶¶2-3, Exh. A.) Plaintiff’s verified responses were initially due on January 16, 2024, and Defendant granted Plaintiff multiple extensions to respond. (Decl. of Moutes-Lee ¶4.) On March 14, 2024, Plaintiff served unverified responses on Defendant, which largely consisted of objections and evasive responses. (Decl. of Moutes-Lee ¶¶4-5, Exh. B.) Defendant now moves to compel responses to the SROG.

Defendant’s motion to compel responses is denied. Plaintiff provided Defendant with late, verified responses on November 14, 2024. (Opposition, Exh. B; see Decl. of Nielsen ¶¶20-21.)

(3.0 hours to prepare instant motion x $260.00) + (0.5 hours to review opposition x $260) + $60.00 filing fee = $970.00

The sanctions are payable by Plaintiff and his attorney, jointly and severally, within 20 days of this order.

Having reviewed Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses from Plaintiff to Defendant’s RFP, the Court rules as follows.

On December 15, 2023, Defendant propounded RFP on Plaintiff. (Decl. of Moutes-Lee ¶¶2-3, Exh. A.) Plaintiff’s verified responses were initially due on January 16, 2024, and Defendant granted Plaintiff multiple extensions to respond. (Decl. of Moutes-Lee ¶4.) On March 14, 2024, Plaintiff served unverified responses on Defendant, which largely consisted of objections and evasive responses. (Decl. of Moutes-Lee ¶¶4-5, Exh. B.) Defendant now moves to compel responses to the RFP.

Defendant’s motion to compel responses is denied. Plaintiff provided Defendant with late, verified responses on November 14, 2024. (Opposition, Exh. B; see Decl. of Nielsen ¶¶20-21.)

Defendant requests monetary sanctions totaling $1,620.00 against Plaintiff and/or his counsel. The Court awards sanctions pursuant to C.C.P. §2031.300(c) in the reduced amount of $970.00, calculated as follows:

(3.0 hours to prepare instant motion x $260.00) + (0.5 hours to review opposition x $260) + $60.00 filing fee = $970.00

The sanctions are payable by Plaintiff and his attorney, jointly and severally, within 20 days of this order.

Having reviewed Defendant’s Motion to Deem RFA Admitted against Plaintiff, the Court rules as follows.

On December 15, 2023, Defendant propounded RFA on Plaintiff. (Decl. of Moutes-Lee ¶¶2-3, Exh. A.) Plaintiff’s verified responses were initially due on January 16, 2024, and Defendant granted Plaintiff multiple extensions to respond. (Decl. of Moutes-Lee ¶4.) On March 14, 2024, Plaintiff served unverified responses on Defendant, which largely consisted of objections and evasive responses. (Decl. of Moutes-Lee ¶¶4-5, Exh. B.) Defendant now moves to deem admitted its RFA and the genuineness any documents specified in the RFA.

Defendant’s motion to deem admitted the RFA is denied. Plaintiff provided Defendant with late, verified responses on November 14, 2024. (Opposition, Exh. B; see Decl. of Nielsen ¶20.)

Defendant requests monetary sanctions totaling $1,620.00 against Plaintiff and/or his counsel. The Court awards sanctions pursuant to C.C.P. §2033.280(c) in the reduced amount of $970.00, calculated as follows:

(3.0 hours to prepare instant motion x $260.00) + (0.5 hours to review opposition x $260) + $60.00 filing fee = $970.00

The sanctions are payable by Plaintiff and his attorney, jointly and severally, within 20 days of this order.

On November 15, 2024, the parties met with the Court for an IDC regarding the instant motion, and after discussion the Court deemed the issues unresolved. (11/15/24 Minute Order.)

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant to his RFP, the Court rules as follows:

On January 31, 2024, Plaintiff propounded RFP on Defendant. (Decl. of Nielsen ¶4.) On April 2, 2024, after a 30-day extension, Defendant provided incomplete discovery responses. (Decl. of Nielsen ¶5.) Plaintiff now moves to compel further responses.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further Code-compliant responses from Defendant to RFP Request Nos. 2-3 is denied.

RFP Request No. 2 states: “Produce all Documents that support any of Your contentions in response to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – General - Set One, served concurrently herewith.” (MTCF RFP SS, pg. 2.)

Defendant’s objection to Request No. 2 is well taken. The request is unintelligible as to the phrase “Your Contentions.” Request No. 2 seeks all documents supporting Defendant’s contentions in response to Form Interrogatories. Plaintiff fails to define the term “contentions,” it is unclear what Plaintiff is referring to with the statement “your contentions” in response to Form Interrogatories.

RFP Request No. 3 states: “Without individually identifying any claimant other than Plaintiff, or providing any other constitutionally or statutorily protected information, produce each and every claim denial letter for each and every claim for property damage under any automobile insurance policy that You issued to any Person Related to wind, sand, or dust damage occurring on May 28, 2022 in Riverside County, including, without limitation, in zip codes 92201, 92203, 92211, 92234, 92236, 92270, or 92276, for which You denied coverage.” (MTCF RFP SS, pg. 3.)

Defendant’s objection to Request No. 3 is well taken. The only instances when documents related to other insureds may be relevant and discoverable is when the insured alleges the insurer’s acts “were engaged in with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice.” (Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 791.) In such instances, “[d]iscovery aimed at determining the frequency of alleged unfair settlement practices is . . . likely to produce evidence directly relevant to the action.” (Id.) Here, Plaintiff makes no such allegations that Defendant acted in a “pattern and practice” of wrongfully investigating and denying property damage claims like Plaintiff’s claim. The request is therefore not relevant to Plaintiff’s claims.

Further, even in instances where “pattern and practice” discovery may be warranted, courts limit the discoverability of information related to other insureds to those claims handled by a single adjuster. (Id. at pg. 789.) Additionally, before allowing the discoverability of such information, courts require that the other insureds respond to a court-approved letter before the propounding party can obtain the information and/or documents to preserve the insured’s privacy rights and confidentiality. (Id. at pg. 794 [“The court barred plaintiff’s counsel from contacting other claimants until those claimants responded to a court-approved letter. In addition, the court’s November 9 protective order barred plaintiff’s attorney from disclosing or publishing [the information], and from ‘making any use thereof except for preparation for trial and trial in this action.’”].)

Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $788.00 against Defendant. As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff fails to provide notice to Defendant of the statute under which it moves for sanctions, thereby depriving Defendant of due process. Therefore, the Court declines to award Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions.

Defendant, in its opposition, requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and/or his counsel of record in the amount of $1,040.00 pursuant to C.C.P. §2023.010(c) and 2031.310(h) for having to oppose the instant motion. (Notice Opposition MTCF RFP, pg. 2.)

The Court declines to award sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel pursuant to C.C.P. §2031.310(h) in the amount of $1,040.00, on the basis Defendant’s counsel failed to file a declaration in support of her request for sanctions on this opposition; Defendant appears to have filed its memorandum of points and authorities twice instead of filing Moutes-Lee’s declaration for this motion. Therefore, Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied.

On November 15, 2024, the parties met with the Court for an IDC regarding the instant motion, and after discussion the Court deemed the issues unresolved. (11/15/24 Minute Order.)

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant to his FROG, the Court rules as follows:

On January 31, 2024, Plaintiff served FROG on Defendant. (Decl. of Nielsen ¶4.) On April 2, 2024, after a 30-day extension, Defendant provided incomplete discovery responses. (Decl. of Nielsen ¶5.) Plaintiff now moves to compel further responses.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further Code-compliant responses from Defendant to FROG Request Nos. 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 12.7, 13.1,

13.2, 14.1, 16.1, 16.7, 16.8, and 50.2 is granted. Defendant is ordered to provide further Code-compliant responses to FROG within 20 days of this ruling.

Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s requests on the basis the term “INCIDENT” was not specifically defined is unavailing. Defendant can apply a reasonable interpretation to the interrogatories with respect to Plaintiff’s cause of action for breach of contract. Further, Defendant’s objections on the basis of “attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, and/or litigation privilege” is not a sufficient ground for an objection; a privilege log must identify with particularity each document it claims is protected from disclosure and provide sufficient factual information for the propounding party and court to evaluate whether the claim has merit. (E.g., Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1130, citing C.C.P. §§2031.240(b), (c).) Defendant’s notation on the privilege log does not list any documents withheld on the grounds of “attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, and/or litigation privilege” and only specifies that it has withheld or redacted documents that are “[i]rrelevant; confidential; proprietary.” (Decl. of Nielsen ¶¶16-17, Exh. B.) The description of “Claim activity re SFI Invoice” is not sufficient factual information for this Court to evaluate whether Defendant’s position has merit.

Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $518.00 against Defendant. As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff fails to provide notice to Defendant of the statute under which it moves for sanctions, thereby depriving Defendant of due process. Therefore, the Court declines to award Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions.

Defendant, in its opposition, requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and/or his counsel of record in the amount of $1,040.00 pursuant to C.C.P. §2023.010(c) and 2030.300(d) for having to oppose the instant motion. (Notice Opposition MTCF FROG, pg. 2.)

In light of the Court’s ruling on this motion, the Court declines to award sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel.

On November 15, 2024, the parties met with the Court for an IDC regarding the instant motion, and after discussion the Court deemed the issues unresolved. (11/15/24 Minute Order.)

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant to his SROG, the Court rules as follows:

On January 31, 2024, Plaintiff served SROG on Defendant. (Decl. of Nielsen ¶4.) On April 2, 2024, after a 30-day extension, Defendant provided incomplete discovery responses. (Decl. of Nielsen ¶5.) Plaintiff now moves to compel further responses.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further Code-compliant responses from Defendant to SROG Request Nos. 1-5 is denied.

SROG Request No. 1 states: “Without individually identifying any claimant other than Plaintiff, or providing any other constitutionally or statutorily protected information, state the number of claims for property damage that You received, under any automobile insurance policy that You issued to any Person, that Relate to wind, sand, or dust damage occurring on May 28, 2022, in Riverside County, including, without limitation, in zip codes 92201, 92203, 92211, 92234, 92236, 92270, or 92276.” (MTCF SROG SS, pg. 2.)

SROG Request No. 2 states: “Without individually identifying any claimant other than Plaintiff, or providing any other constitutionally or statutorily protected information, state the number of claims for property damage under any automobile insurance policy that You issued to any Person Related to wind, sand, or dust damage occurring on May 28, 2022, in Riverside County, including, without limitation, in zip codes 92201, 92203, 92211, 92234, 92236, 92270, or 92276, for which You denied coverage.” (MTCF SROG SS, pg. 3.)

SROG Request No. 3 states: “Without individually identifying any claimant, or providing any other constitutionally or statutorily protected information, state the number of claims for property damage under any automobile insurance policy that You issued to any Person, Related to wind, sand, or dust damage occurring on May 28, 2022 in Riverside County, including, without limitation, in zip codes 92201, 92203, 92211, 92234, 92236, 92270, or 92276, under which You tendered any payment for repairs.” (MTCF SROG SS, pgs. 3-4.)

SROG Request No. 4 states: “Without individually identifying any claimant, or providing any other constitutionally or statutorily protected information, for each and every claim for property damage under any automobile insurance policy that You issued to any Person, Related to wind, sand, or dust damage occurring on May 28, 2022 in Riverside County, including, without limitation, in zip codes 92201, 92203, 92211, 92234, 92236, 92270, or 92276, under which You tendered any payment for repairs, state the total payment tendered with respect to each such claim.” (MTCF SROG SS, pg. 6.)

SROG Request No. 5 states: “Without individually identifying any claimant, or providing any other constitutionally or statutorily protected information, for each and every claim for property damage under any automobile insurance policy that You issued to any Person, Related to wind, sand, or dust damage occurring on May 28, 2022 in Riverside County, including, without limitation, in zip codes 92201, 92203, 92211, 92234, 92236, 92270, or 92276, under which You tendered any payment for repairs, state the claim number of each such claim.” (MTCF SROG SS, pg. 7.)

Defendant’s objection to Request Nos. 1-5 are well taken. The only instances when information related to other insureds may be relevant and discoverable is when the insured alleges the insurer’s acts “were engaged in with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice.” (Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co., 31 Cal.3d at pg. 791.) In such instances, “[d]iscovery aimed at determining the frequency of alleged unfair settlement practices is . . . likely to produce evidence directly relevant to the action.” (Id.) Here, Plaintiff makes no such allegations that Defendant acted in a “pattern and practice” of wrongfully investigating and denying property damage claims like Plaintiff’s claim. The requests are therefore not relevant to Plaintiff’s claims.

Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,633.00 against Defendant. As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff fails to provide notice to Defendant of the statute under which it moves for sanctions, thereby depriving Defendant of due process. Further, in light of the instant motion, the Court declines to award Plaintiff sanctions. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is denied.

The Court grants Defendant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff and/or his counsel of record, Champion Law Firm, jointly and severally, pursuant to C.C.P. §2023.010(c) and 2030.300(d), in the reduced amount of $520.00, calculated as follows:

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court