Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: 19TRCV00670, Date: 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19TRCV00670 Hearing Date: August 25, 2022 Dept: B
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT
Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Thursday, August 25, 2022
Department B Calendar No. 7
PROCEEDINGS
Ronald Neer, et al. v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company, et al.
19TRCV00670
Ronald Neer, et al.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Three, Requests for Admissions, Set Three, and Form Interrogatories, Set Three
USAA Casualty Insurance Company’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two
TENTATIVE RULING
Ronald Neer, et al.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Three, Requests for Admissions, Set Three, and Form Interrogatories, Set Three is granted, in part, and is denied, in part.
USAA Casualty Insurance Company’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Three is denied, in part, and is moot, in part.
Background
Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on August 1, 2019. Plaintiffs allege the following facts. Plaintiffs suffered a drain leak and water damage on real property owned by them and insured with Defendant USAA. USAA engaged in an unreasonable and conscious effort to delay, withhold, and deny payment of policy benefits. Plaintiffs were denied payments that were owed to them under the policy. Plaintiffs allege the following causes of action: 1. Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; 2. Breach of Contract; 3. Negligence.
Motions to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Requests for Admissions, and Form Interrogatories
A party responding to an inspection demand shall respond to each demand with one of the following: a statement the party will comply with the demand, a representation the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand, or an objection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (a).) A response to an inspection demand may be inadequate because it is evasive or incomplete; contains an incomplete statement of compliance; an inadequate, incomplete, or evasive representation of inability to comply; or meritless or overly general objections to a demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)
If a demanding party believes the responding party responded inadequately, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) “Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).)
Where responses to interrogatories have been served but the requesting party believes that they are deficient because the answers are evasive or incomplete, or, because an objection is without merit, that party may move for an order compelling a further response. CCP § 2030.300(a). Notice of the motion must be given within 45 days after service of verified responses in question, or any verified supplemental responses. CCP § 2030.300(c). The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration in compliance with CCP § 2016.040. CCP § 2030.300(b).
Where responses to requests for admissions have been served but requesting party believes that they are deficient because the answers are evasive or incomplete, or, because an objection is without merit, that party may move for an order compelling a further response. CCP § 2033.290(a). The motion must be made within 45 days after service of verified responses in question, or any verified supplemental responses. CCP § 2033.290(c). The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration in compliance with CCP § 2016.040. CCP § 2033.290(b).
Plaintiffs Neer, et al.’s Motion
Meet and Confer
Plaintiffs set forth a meet and confer declaration in substantial compliance with CCP § 2031.310(b)(2). (Decl., Philip A. Baker, ¶¶ 2-6.)
Motion to Compel
Request for Production of Documents
As to Request 43, which seeks all hyperlink documents from Defendant’s claim handling manual, the motion is denied because the request is overly broad. The Court does note that, in the response, Defendant contended that it would produce hyperlinks entitled “Reimbursement of Expenses Previously Incurred by the Member,” “Contamination and Pollution claims,” and “Carpet Valuation.” A production that is narrowed to these types of documents does appear to be reasonable, and, if Defendant voluntarily chooses to respond as such it is free to do so.
As to Requests 44 to 46, 50, and 51, the motion is granted. Defendant’s response consists of objections based on the attorney/client privilege, work product doctrine, confidential business information, and that the requests “exceed the scope of discovery.” However, Defendant has failed to provide facts to justify these objections.
As to Request 47, the motion is granted, in part. The response consists of the same unsubstantiated objections set forth with respect to Requests 44 to 46. Then, Defendant states that it has already produced documents pursuant to this request but sums up the response by stating that it will not produce any documents with respect to this Request. Thus, it is not clear whether Defendant did, or did not, produce documents responsive to this request. If Defendant did not, then Defendant is ordered to serve a further response.
As to Requests 48 and 49, the motion is granted. It appears that Defendant stated that it would produce documents with respect to these Requests, but Plaintiffs contend that no further documents have been produced.
The Court notes that Defendant’s counsel does seem to indicate that some type of further response was served on August 12, 2022. However, Defendant failed to attach a proof of service of the responses or copies of the responses so that the Court could confirm that further responses were served, and to analyze to which Requests those further responses were directed. Plaintiffs deny that further responses were served.
Requests for Admissions; Form Interrogatory
As to Requests 46 to 63, and corresponding Form Interrogatory 17.1, the motion is denied. The requests and interrogatory are overly broad and burdensome.
Plaintiffs argue that the Requests do not require that Defendant identify every instance of asbestos from 2016 to 2021. Instead, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant is merely required to identify just one and stop there. Plaintiffs also argue that Defendant is not required to provide detailed information regarding every instance of asbestos involvement. However, this argument relies on the presumption, albeit a reasonable one, that a very cursory and quick search will easily lead to the discovery of one asbestos involving claim for each of those years. However, the Court cannot simply make that presumption. In a scenario where there is a lack of such claims, Defendant would indeed have to make a painstaking search through their entire claim history to find such claims. Therefore, the motion is denied as to Requests 46 to 63.
The Court does note that Defendant’s argument regarding the fact that the notice of motion was directed to Requests 32 to 45 was not considered in the Court’s ruling because it was obvious to all parties and the Court that this was merely a typographical error in the notice. It is inconceivable that Defendant could reasonably believe that the Court would deny this motion simply based on this argument.
Defendant USAA’s Motion
Meet and Confer
Defendant filed a meet and confer declaration setting forth a reasonable good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion in compliance with CCP § 2031.310(b). (Decl., Thomas Nienow, ¶¶ 4-11.)
Motion to Compel
As to Requests 42 to 44, the motion is denied.
In Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35-37, the California Supreme Court “established a framework for evaluating potential invasions of privacy. The party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious. . . . . The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy. A court must then balance these competing considerations.” Williams v. Superior Court, supra, 3 Cal.5th at 552 (citations omitted). In Hill, the Court “explained that not ‘every assertion of a privacy interest under article I, section 1 must be overcome by a “compelling interest.” . . . . A ‘“compelling interest”’ is still required to justify ‘an obvious invasion of an interest fundamental to personal autonomy.’” Id. at 556.
In an older case, the California Supreme Court, in Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court, “indulge[d] in a careful balancing of the right of civil litigants to discover relevant facts, on the one hand, with the right of bank customers to maintain reasonable privacy regarding their financial affairs, on the other.” Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 657.
“There is no recognized federal or state constitutional right to maintain the privacy of tax returns. California courts, however, have interpreted state taxation statutes as creating a statutory privilege against disclosing tax returns. The purpose of the privilege is to encourage voluntary filing of tax returns and truthful reporting of income, and thus to facilitate tax collection. But this statutory tax return privilege is not absolute. The privilege will not be upheld when (1) the circumstances indicate an intentional waiver of the privilege; (2) the gravamen of the lawsuit is inconsistent with the privilege; or (3) a public policy greater than that of the confidentiality of tax returns is involved. This latter exception is narrow and applies only when warranted by a legislatively declared public policy.” Weingarten v. Superior Court (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 268, 274 (internal citations and quotations omitted).
The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ financial right of privacy as to their tax returns outweighs Defendant’s asserted need for this information. Defendant is correct that the tax return privilege is not necessarily absolute. However, at this time, Defendant has not established that the need for this information can overcome Plaintiffs’ right to maintain this information private.
As to Requests 45, 46, and 50, the motion is denied. The requests are overly broad and burdensome. Plaintiffs’ financial right of privacy outweighs Defendant’s asserted need for this information. Request 45 essentially seek every billing entry with respect to Mr. Neel’s employment as an attorney from 2016 to the present. Request 46 demands every document relating to every deposit of income received by Plaintiffs from Forum Law Partners, LLP or Coleman Frost, LLP. Request 50 demands every document that relates to Neer’s hourly billing rate from 2016 to the present. While Defendant has a right to conduct discovery with respect to Plaintiffs’ lost income claim, the requests as framed are overly broad. Less intrusive means exist to obtain such information.
As to Request 56, the motion is moot as Plaintiffs served a further response. Defendant acknowledges receiving a further response.
As to all portions of both motions which were granted, the opposing party is directed to serve a further response within 10 days of this date.
All requests for monetary sanctions requested by the parties are denied.
Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this ruling.