Judge: James A. Mangione, Case: 37-2023-00010905-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-05-24 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 23, 2024

05/24/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-75 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:James A Mangione

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Discovery Hearing 37-2023-00010905-CU-BC-CTL CITY OF SAN DIEGO VS PUBLIC RISK INNOVATIONS SOLUTIONS AND MANAGEMENT [IMAGE] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiff City of San Diego's ('City') motions to compel Defendant Public Risk Innovations, Solutions, and Management's ('PRISM') further responses to Interrogatories, Set One (ROA # 29), and Demand for Inspection and Copying of Documents, Set One (ROA# 26) (collectively 'Motions'), are GRANTED.

PRISM opposed the motions on the basis that: (1) the information and documents sought were not relevant to the action and not likely to lead to admissible evidence; and (2) the City does not have a valid breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing cause of action.

As a preliminary matter, contrary to PRISM's assertion, the City has not abandoned its implied breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim. (See City's Reply, Ex. G.) The purpose of discovery is to obtain information on any unprivileged matter that is relevant to the subject of the pending action, 'if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) 'For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. The scope of discovery extends to any information that reasonably might lead to other evidence that would be admissible at trial.

'Thus, the scope of permissible discovery is one of reason, logic and common sense.' (Seahaus La Jolla Owners Assn. v. Superior Court (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 754, 767 [internal citations and quotations omitted].) A party is not required to supply proof of any claims or defenses as a condition of discovery in support of those claims or defenses. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 551.) The Court finds that the information and documents sought by the City are relevant to the interpretation of the memorandum of coverage ('MOC'), which the City contends is ambiguous and also to the City's cause of action for implied breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Further, information related to PRISM's loss reserves and reinsurance for the City's underlying claim are likely relevant in this action and therefore any such unprivileged documents are subject to discovery. (See Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1614-1618.) PRISM has also failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that the requested discovery posed an undue burden. (See West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) Accordingly, PRISM is ordered to provide further responses to the City's Interrogatories, Set One, and Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3096812  9 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  CITY OF SAN DIEGO VS PUBLIC RISK INNOVATIONS SOLUTIONS  37-2023-00010905-CU-BC-CTL Demands for Inspection and Copying of Documents, Set One, as identified in the Motions, within 30 days of this Order. Further, to the extent PRISM is claiming any documents are privileged, it is ordered to provide a privilege log to allow such claims to be evaluated. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240.) The minute order is the order of the Court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3096812  9