Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 23STCP03152, Date: 2024-01-23 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.

Case Number: 23STCP03152    Hearing Date: January 23, 2024    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner

The Court has reviewed the moving papers.  No opposition papers were filed.  Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b).

BACKGROUND

On August 28, 2023, Petitioner filed a petition (the “Petition”) to establish the Court’s jurisdiction over an uninsured motorist arbitration for purposes of enforcing discovery procedures pursuant to Insurance Code section 11580.2, subdivision (f). 

On September 1, 2023, Petitioner filed: (1) a motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One; and (2) a motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One (collectively, the “Motions”). 

DISCUSSION

The uninsured motorist law grants the superior court the exclusive jurisdiction to hear discovery matters arising under uninsured motorist arbitrations.  (Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, 926.)

            Under CCP section 2030.300, 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 CCP section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate; or (3) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.  (CCP § 2030.300, subd. (a).) 

Responses to interrogatories must be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.  (CCP § 2030.220, subd. (a).)  If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, then it must be answered to the extent possible.  (CCP § 2030.220, subd. (b).)  If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.  (CCP § 2030.220, subd. (c).)  If the responding party cannot furnish details, they should set forth the efforts made to secure the information.  (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782.)  The responding party cannot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under their control.  (Id.)

            Petitioner served Respondent with the discovery requests at issue in the Motions on December 2, 2022.  (See Declaration of Michelle C. Balady (“Balady Decl.”) ¶ 7, Exhibit A.)[1]  Respondent provided responses on July 18, 2023.  (Balady Decl. ¶ 8, Exhibit B.)  The Separate Statements filed in support of the Motions identify Petitioner’s arguments regarding the sufficiency of some of Respondent’s responses.   

As they are unopposed, the Court GRANTS the Motions.  (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)  Respondent is ordered to provide further, code-compliant responses to the discovery at issue in the Motions within 20 days of the date of this order.

             Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

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.

       Dated this 23rd day of January 2024