Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Cyclum Incorporated 

 

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant First American Title Insurance Company 

 

BACKGROUND 

This case arises from a dispute between an insurer and its insured.  Plaintiff Cyclum Incorporated invests in real estate properties that it turns over quickly for profit.  In August 2018, Plaintiff purchased a property located at 3937 Redwood Avenue, Los Angeles, California (the “Property”).  Plaintiff bought title insurance from Defendant First American Title Insurance Company which covered, among other things, title defects and forgery.  Shortly after closing, Plaintiff discovered he was the victim of a forged deed.  Plaintiff filed a claim with Defendant who then denied the claim.  

This hearing is on Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to comply with a stipulation entered on June 12, 2022.  The stipulation states: “Counsel orally stipulate that defense counsel will deliver all documents electronically by Friday [June 17], and will provide verified responses to interrogatories by Wednesday [June 22].”  (June 15, 2022 Minute Order.)  Plaintiff complains that while Defendant produced documents on June 17, the production was not in compliance with the Code as it failed to specify the request to which each document responds.  Plaintiff also states it has not received responses to interrogatories.  (It is unclear from the motion whether no responses were provided to the interrogatories, or Plaintiff is seeking further responses.)      

MEET AND CONFER 

Plaintiff raises several deficiencies in Defendant’s document production but it has not shown it met and conferred with Defendant about each alleged deficiency.  Defendant contends there was no attempt to meet and confer.  (Opp. at 4-5; Connally Decl. ¶ 5.) 

“The Discovery Act requires that…the moving party declare that he or she has made a serious attempt to obtain an informal resolution of each issue.”  (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016 (internal quotations and citations omitted); Code Civ. Proc. §2016.040 (“A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.”).)  This rule is designed “to encourage the parties to work out their differences informally so as to avoid the necessity for a formal order....”  (McElhaney v. Cessna Aircraft Co. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 285, 289.)  “This, in turn, will lessen the burden on the court and reduce the unnecessary expenditure of resources by litigants through promotion of informal, extrajudicial resolution of discovery disputes.”  (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1435.)   

Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s failure to meet and confer, however, the Court will exercise its discretion to consider the merits of Plaintiff’s motion, particularly as it seems Defendant has engaged in a pattern of delay in producing the requested documents and has to date failed to respond fully to interrogatories served in 2020.  The record shows Defendant has repeatedly been ordered to produce or promised to produce documents or respond to interrogatories and failed to do so within the time period ordered or promised.  (Exs. 2-6 to Thomulka Decl.)     

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS 

Defendant’s objections to the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel is overruled. 

DISCUSSION 

Document Requests 

 Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s document production was defective in three respects.  First, Defendant produced over 3,000 documents without identifying the request to which each document was responding.  Code Civ. Proc. §2031.280(a) provides: “Any documents or category of documents produced in response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing or sampling shall be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.”  Defendant indicates it is willing to provide the requested specification.  (Opp. at 5; Connally Decl. ¶ 7.)  Pursuant to Section 2031.280(a), the Court orders Defendant to identify the request to which each document responds.   

Second, Plaintiff argues Defendant produced deposition transcripts/statements but failed to include exhibits used in the depositions/statements.  Defendant does not take a position on whether these exhibits should be produced.  The Court orders Defendant to produce the deposition exhibits.   

Third, Plaintiff argues that the documents reference other documents which were not provided.  There are about 70 to 80 such references.  Defendant does not take a position on whether it will produce these referenced documents.  The Court orders Defendants to produce the referenced documents. 

Interrogatories 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to its interrogatories is not a model of clarity.  Plaintiff has failed to file a separate statement as required by Rule 3.1345.  (Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893 (failure to file a separate statement is grounds for denial of a motion to compel).)  Accordingly, it is unclear what interrogatories are at issue, whether responses have already been provided but are alleged to be deficient, and why they are deficient.  Moreover, under this department’s rules, the parties must schedule an informal discovery conference (“IDC”) before filing a motion to compel further responses.  It is unclear if an IDC was held regarding the particular interrogatories at issue here.  If an IDC fails to resolve the parties’ dispute, the parties are then required to submit a joint statement “consisting of a four column document set up as follows: The first column will identify the number of the discovery request; the second, the text of the discovery request; the third, the text of the response; and the fourth, brief bullet point statements, one from each party, as to why a further response should or should not be compelled.”  There was no joint statement filed.        

Given all the foregoing, the Court denies without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to its interrogatories.   

Sanctions 

Plaintiff requests sanctions of $3,310 against Defendant and its attorney of record, representing 8 hours of time spent in trying to obtain discovery responses, at an hourly rate of $325, plus $60 for the filing fee for the motion to compel.  Plaintiff also requests that the Court strike the Answer given Defendant’s repeated failures to provide discovery and misrepresentations to the Court on at least six occasions that it would provide discovery it eventually failed to provide.   

While Plaintiff prevailed on its motion to compel further responses to its document production, it failed to meet and confer with Defendant which could have resolved problems with the production without Court intervention.  Further, Defendant represents it has not been stonewalling discovery, but rather, it requested and obtained extensions from Plaintiff for various good faith reasons including personnel problems during the Covid-19 lockdowns, a death in the family, other serious health problems involving hospitalizations of members of counsel’s immediate family, a fire that displaced a family member and a lengthy arbitration.        

Based on the foregoing, the Court denies the request for monetary sanctions and to strike the Answer.  However, should there continue to be delays in discovery, the Court will entertain monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions.    

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion to compel and request for sanctions.   

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: March 16, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court