Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case 22STCP02491 2022-10-12 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

This action arises out of injuries sustained in an alleged automobile accident that occurred while Petitioner was operating her personal vehicle as a driver for the Uber rideshare app. Petitioner filed a petition (the “Petition”) to establish the Court’s jurisdiction over this matter which the parties intend to adjudicate in underinsured motorist arbitration.

Respondent filed a motion for protective order (the “Motion”) seeking to preclude Petitioner from taking the deposition of Respondent’s person most knowledgeable (“PMK”) and the request for documents accompanying the deposition notice.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 2025.420, subdivision (a), before, during, or after a deposition, any party, any deponent, or any other affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order.¿ (CCP § 2025.420,¿subd. (a).)¿ For good cause shown, the court may make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.¿ (CCP § 2025.420,¿subd. (b).)¿ CCP section 2025.420, subdivision (b) sets forth a nonexclusive list of directions that may be included in a protective order, including orders directing that the deposition may not be taken at all or that the deposition be taken at a different time. (See id.) The burden is on the party seeking the protective order to show good cause for whatever order is sought. (Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 261, 318.) The issuance and formulation of protective orders are to a large extent discretionary, and a ruling on such motions will not be disturbed absent abuse of discretion. (Id. at 316-17.)

A party may obtain discovery regarding “any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence... .” (CCP § 2017.010.) In the context of discovery, evidence is “relevant” if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. (Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) Admissibility is not the test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence. (Id.)

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. A party may also obtain discovery as to whether that insurance carrier is disputing the agreement's coverage of the claim involved in the action, but not as to the nature and substance of that dispute. Information concerning the insurance agreement is not by reason of disclosure admissible in evidence at trial. (CCP § 2017.210.)

In accordance with the liberal policies underlying the discovery procedures, California courts have been broad-minded in determining whether discovery is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. (Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 172.) As a practical matter, it is difficult to define at the discovery stage what evidence will be relevant at trial; therefore, the party seeking discovery is entitled to substantial leeway. (Id. at 172.) Furthermore, California’s liberal approach to permissible discovery generally has led the courts to resolve any doubt in favor of permitting discovery. (Id. at 173.) In doing so, courts have taken the view if an error is made in ruling on a discovery motion, it is better that it be made in favor of granting discovery of the nondiscoverable rather than denying discovery of information vital to preparation or presentation of the party's case or to efficacious settlement of the dispute. (Norton v. Superior Court (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1750, 1761.)

As a preliminary matter, the Court finds that Respondent has satisfied the meet and confer requirement for seeking a protective order. (See CCP 2025.420, subd. (a).)

Petitioner seeks to depose Respondent’s PMK on matters concerning the scope of Petitioner’s insurance coverage at the time of the alleged accident, which affects the scope of coverage. (See Motion, Exhibit A.) The Motion argues that the deposition of the PMK is burdensome because it seeks information that is not relevant to the scope of the forthcoming arbitration and is a fishing attempt to obtain evidence for a potential bad faith insurance claim. Respondent contends that since it is not disputed that none of its representatives was present at the scene of the car accident, the deposition of its PMK is not calculated to lead to admissible evidence during the arbitration. (See Declaration of Adam M. Rivera (“Rivera Decl.”) ¶ 8.)

It appears to the Court that the Parties dispute the extent of the insurance coverage at the time of the accident and certain of the requests made in the deposition notice appear calculated to discover information regarding the nature of the dispute, which is not discoverable under CCP section 2015.210. The requests are broadly phrased, however, and may encompass information that is both discoverable and not discoverable, and the Court finds that Respondent has not otherwise met its burden to demonstrate that such requests are unduly burdensome. Where Claimant seeks information relating to Respondent’s investigation relating to liability and damages, the Court determines this information most could facilitate the discovery of information relevant and admissible on the issues in the arbitration.

The Court therefore GRANTS the Motion in part. The deposition of Respondent’s PMK may proceed, and Plaintiff may seek information regarding whether Respondent disputes the scope of coverage, but Plaintiff may not seek information directly targeted at any such dispute over which coverage period applies. Plaintiff may not seek information regarding Topics 1, 2 and 4. With respect to Topic 3, Plaintiff may see information concerning Respondent’s information regarding its investigation of the circumstances of the collision, but not Respondent’s determination of which coverage period was applicable. Respondent’s PMK may be deposed on the remainder of the topics listed in the deposition notice. The Court finds that Plaintiff acted with substantial justification and declines to issue monetary sanctions in connection to the Motion. (See CCP § 2025.420, subd. (h).)

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court strongly encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative. If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org stating your intention to appear in person. The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date. This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court