Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 21STCV46188, Date: 2022-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV46188    Hearing Date: August 17, 2022    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On December 17, 2021, Plaintiff Loretta Anderson, through her successor in interest, Lori Brackett, filed this action against Defendants CVVG Management, LLC and Conrado Garcia, alleging elder abuse and negligent hiring. The allegations stem from injuries Plaintiff sustained while a resident at Defendants’ care facility, Jasmin Terrace, located in Bakersfield. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that she developed pressure ulcers due to Defendants’ inadequate care.

            The subject of the instant motion to compel is a series of special interrogatories that Plaintiff propounded to Defendant seeking information on Defendant’s liability insurance coverage. Specifically, the requests ask the following: (1) whether any other claims have been made against Defendant’s insurance policy; (2) the identity of each claimant; (3) the identity of the attorney representing each claimant; (4) the case information for each claim; (5) whether any monetary payments have been tendered as to each claim; and (6) the total amount of monetary reserves set for as against the insurance policy. Defendant objected to each request as exceeding the permissible scope of discovery.

LEGAL STANDARD

On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that 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; (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

MEET AND CONFER

Motions to compel further responses must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).) The Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied the meet and confer requirement. (See Garcia Decl. ¶¶ 8-10.)

DISCUSSION

“A party may obtain discovery of the existence and contents of any agreement under which any insurance carrier may be liable to satisfy in whole or in part a judgment that may be entered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment. This discovery may include the identity of the carrier and the nature and limits of the coverage.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.210.) This code section is “specifically intended to authorize limited discovery of a defendant's liability insurance coverage,” namely the “‘existence and contents’ of liability insurance policies that may be available to satisfy a judgment.” (Catholic Mutual Relief Society v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 358, 372-73.) A litigant is not entitled to discovery of information that does not relate to “the terms, conditions or provisions of the contract of liability insurance between the direct liability insurer and its insured.” (Id. at p. 373.)

Here, Special Interrogatory Nos. 80-86 request information that falls outside the limitations of Section 2017.210. The statute authorizes discovery into “the existence and contents” of pertinent insurance agreements, not claims being made against the policy.

Plaintiff argues that information which facilitates settlement falls within the scope of permissible discovery. (Plntf.’s Separate Statement (“SS”) 2:15-17.) First, Plaintiff does not explain how the information sought facilitates settlement. Second, the cited case is inapposite. In Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1612-14, the court held that information on an insurer’s loss reserves may be relevant in an insured’s bad faith claim. The Court of Appeal then ordered the trial court to conduct an in-camera review of requested documents to determine their relevance. (Id. at p. 1620.) The present case is not a bad faith action against an insurer, and Plaintiff is seeking information that was not at issue in Lipton. Plaintiff fails to explain how the requested information is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)

Plaintiff then argues that Section 2017.210 expressly authorizes discovery of information about the existence and contents of insurance agreements and cites caselaw holding that production of relevant insurance policies is permitted in personal injury claims. (Plntf.’s SS 2:17-24.) However, Plaintiff does not explain how the information sought in these particular interrogatories—i.e., information on claims made against the policy—constitute information on the “existence and contents” of insurance agreements. Even if Plaintiff were entitled to production of the policies themselves, that does not mean Plaintiff is entitled to information on other claims being made against the policy.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is DENIED.