Judge Jill Feeney, Case 21STCV11622 2022-08-11 Tentative Ruling

This is an action for subrogation arising from a vehicle collision which took place in October 2017. On March 25, 2021, Plaintiff Safeway Insurance Company filed its complaint against Defendants Litzy M. Cuevas, Angelina Cuevas, and Does 1 through 5 for damages in the amount of $32,609.22 for insurance benefits paid to the Insured, Estela Yinnieblas.

Plaintiff argues that issue sanctions are appropriate in this matter because Defendant Litzy Cuevas failed to comply with the Court’s May 9, 2022 order to serve verified responses without objections to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories and to pay sanctions in the amount of $660. Plaintiff requests that the following be deemed as true:

2. On or about October 5, 2017, Defendant Litzy M. Cuevas was driving the Ford Explorer with California license plate number 4CKM014 at and about El Dorado Avenue in the city of Pacoima, California 91331 and collided said vehicle into Plaintiff’s Insured’s 1997 Honda Acord.

5. That Plaintiff paid for the damages sustained to Plaintiff’s Insured’s 1997 Honda Accord sustained damages (sic) in the sum of $2,609.22, and for medical care Plaintiff’s Insured received as a result of the incident in the sum of $30,000.00, and is thereby subrogated to the rights of its insured to recover said sum from Defendant.

“To the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title, the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose…sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 2023.030.) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) “The court may impose an issue sanction ordering that designated facts shall be taken as established in the action in accordance with the claim of the party adversely affected by the misuse of the discovery process.” (Code Civ. Pro. section 2023.030, subd. (b).)

“Discovery sanctions must be tailored in order to remedy the offending party's discovery abuse, should not give the aggrieved party more than what it is entitled to, and should not be used to punish the offending party.” (Karlsson v. Ford Motor Co. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1202, 1217.)¿ “Although the court has discretion in choosing a sanction, this discretion must be exercised in a manner consistent with the basic purposes of such sanctions, e.g., to compel disclosure of discoverable information.” (Rutledge v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1164, 1193 (citation omitted).) “Furthermore, the sanction chosen should not provide a windfall to the other party, by putting the prevailing party in a better position than if he or she had obtained the discovery sought and it had been favorable.” (Ibid. (citations omitted).)

A motion for issue or evidentiary sanctions must be accompanied by a separate statement. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(a)(7).) “A separate statement is a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion that provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue. The separate statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response. Material must not be incorporated into the separate statement by reference.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(c).)¿

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Litzy Cuevas failed to comply with the Court’s May 9, 2022 order and seeks an order designating facts as established. Plaintiff supports its motion with a declaration from Counsel, Christina Cicione. Plaintiff propounded form interrogatories on Defendant Litzy Cuevas on November 18, 2021. (Cicione Decl., ¶2.) After receiving no response, Plaintiff sent a letter to Litzy Cuevas by mail requesting discovery responses on December 28, 2021. (Id., ¶4.) On January 11, 2022, Plaintiff sent Litzy Cuevas a second letter by mail requesting discovery responses. (Id., ¶5.) Receiving no response, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories on February 18, 2022. (Id., ¶¶6-7.) The motion was granted on May 9, 2022. Plaintiff served Litzy Cuevas with notice of the ruling on May 10, 2022. (Id., ¶9.) To date, Defendant Litzy Cuevas has not served responses to form interrogatories or paid sanctions despite the court order compelling her to do so. (Id., ¶¶10-11.) Defendant Litzy Cuevas was properly served with notice of the instant motion. (Motion, Proof of Service.)

Plaintiff’s request for an order designating facts as established is granted because Defendant’s failure to comply with the Court’s May 9, 2022 order and repeated failure to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests is a misuse of discovery. However, the sanctions granted must be tailored to remedy the discovery abuse in a manner that does not grant Plaintiff a windfall.

Form Interrogatory 16.8 asks “Do you contend that any of the costs of repairing the property damage claimed by Plaintiff in discovery thus far in this case was unreasonable? If so: (a) identify each cost item; (b) state all facts upon which you base your contention; (c) state names ADDRESSES and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of the facts; and (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing.”

A favorable response to Plaintiff would have been “no.” Defendant’s response would thus have confirmed that Plaintiff’s claimed property damages of $2,609.22 to her 1997 Honda Accord were not unreasonable. The Court grants this request.

Form Interrogatory 20.2 asks “For each vehicle involved in the INCIDENT, state: (a) the year, make, model, and license number; (b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the driver; (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each occupant other than the driver; (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each registered owner; (e) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each lessee; (f) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each owner other than the registered owner or lien holder; and (g) the name of each owner who gave permission or consent to the driver to operate the vehicle.

Plaintiff requests that the Court designate as established that Defendant Litzy M. Cuevas was the driver of the Ford Explorer with California license plate number 4CKM014 involved in the incident. A favorable reply to Plaintiff would have included the identity of the driver, the make of her car, the model of car, and the license plate number of the car involved in the incident. The Court grants this request.

Plaintiff requests that the Court designate as established that Defendant was driving her vehicle at and about El Dorado Avenue in the city of Pacoima, California 91331 and collided said vehicle into Plaintiff’s Insured’s 1997 Honda Accord. Because this basic description of the incident would have been a favorable response to Plaintiff, the Court grants this request.

Plaintiff also requests that the Court designate as established that on or about October 5, 2017, Defendant was negligent in the operation of her vehicle at the time of the collision. This is a legal conclusion that would not have been a favorable response to this form interrogatory. The Court denies this request. The Court does deem established that the date of the accident was October 5, 2017.

Plaintiff also requests that the Court designate as established that as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, Insured’s 1997 Honda Accord sustained damages in the sum of $2,609.22, and Insured was injured. The portion of this request pertaining to proximate cause and Litzy’s negligence are legal conclusions that would not have been included in a favorable response from Defendant. The Court does deem established that Insured suffered property damage in the amount of $2,609.22 and that Insured was injured as a result of the crash.

Lastly, Plaintiff requests that the Court designate as established that Plaintiff paid for the damages sustained to Plaintiff’s Insured’s 1997 Honda Accord sustained damages (sic) in the sum of $2,609.22 and for medical care Plaintiff’s Insured received as a result of the incident in the sum of $30,000 and is thereby subrogated to the rights of its insured to recover said sum from Defendant. The Court cannot grant this request because Form Interrogatory number 20.8 does not encompass facts about the cost of Insured’s medical care, the amount in insurance benefits paid by Plaintiff, and subrogation. This question is only concerned with the events which occurred just before, during, and just after the incident. Insured’s medical care, insurance benefits, and the subrogation issue took place well after the incident. This request is denied.