Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 22BBCV00174, Date: 2023-05-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCV00174    Hearing Date: May 5, 2023    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations in 22BBCV00174

Plaintiff California Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) alleges that it provided insurance coverage to its insured, Melissa Minney, for damages and losses sustained to her residential property located at 745 North Reese Place, Burbank, CA.  Plaintiffs alleges that a tree located in front of the property fell onto the property on October 26, 2020.  Plaintiff alleges that it made payments to its insured in excess of $100,000 and is now subrogated to the rights of its insured to this extent as against Defendant City of Burbank (“Defendant”).  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant inspected, maintained, owned, and exercised dominion and control over the subject trial at all relevant times.

The complaint, filed March 21, 2022, alleges causes of action for: (1) dangerous condition of public property (Gov’t Code, § 835); and (2) inverse condemnation (Cal. Const. Art. I, § 19).

This action was consolidated with 22BBCV00319, John Minney, et al. v. City of Burbank and was deemed the lead case.  On March 15, 2023, Plaintiff dismissed with prejudice the complaint and all causes of action filed by Plaintiff in 22BBCV00174 (lead case). 

B.     Motions on Calendar

On March 21, 2023, Plaintiffs filed 3 motions to compel Defendant’s further responses to: (1) Form Interrogatories (“FROG”); (2) Requests for Production of Documents (“RPD”); and (3) Requests for Admissions (“RFA”).  Plaintiffs seek $6,404.90 in sanctions for the FROG motion, $7,034.90 for the RPD motion, and $5,988.90 for the RFA motion. 

On April 24, 2023, Defendant filed a single opposition brief and three separate statements to the FROG, RPD, and RFA.    

On April 28, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a single reply brief.

DISCUSSION

A.    FROG

Plaintiffs move to compel Defendant’s further responses to FROG Nos. 1.1, 15.1, and 17.1 (re RFA Nos. 5, 7, 8, 13-15, and 17-28).

FROG 1.1 asks Defendant to state the name, address, telephone number, and relationship to it of each person who prepared or assisted in the preparation of the responses to the FROGs.  Defendant responded that the responses were compiled and prepared by the City Attorney’s Office of the City of Burbank.  In the opposition brief, Defendants argue that Burke, Williams, & Sorensen LLP associated in as co-counsel on March 23, 2023 and that Defendant served verified supplemental responses on April 24, 2023 (the date of the opposition brief).  The supplemental response states the initial responses were prepared by Rodolfo Aguado of the City Attorney’s Office and the supplemental responses were prepared by Heather Scott and Charles Abbott of Burke, Williams, & Sorensen LLP.  As supplemental responses have been submitted, the motion to compel further responses is moot.  If Plaintiffs find the supplemental responses unsatisfactory, they will have to file another motion to compel further responses.  However, as supplemental responses have been provided by Defendant, the motion is denied as to FROG No. 1.1. 

FROG No. 15.1 asks Defendant to identify each denial of a material allegation and each special or affirmative defense in the pleadings and for each: (a) state all facts upon which it bases the denial or special or affirmative defense; (b) state the contact information of all persons who have knowledge of those facts; and (c) identify all documents and other tangible things that support its denial or special or affirmative defense, and state the contact information of the person who has each document.  Defendant initially objected to the FROG, but then provided supplemental responses with the opposition brief identifying each affirmative defense and responding to each subsection.  As stated above, since supplemental responses have been provided, the motion is denied as to FROG No. 15.1.

FROG No. 17.1 asks if Defendant’s response to each RFA served with the FROGs is an unqualified admission and, if not, for each response that is not an unqualified admission: (a) state the RFA number; (b) state all facts upon which the response is based; (c) state the contact information of all persons with knowledge of those facts; and (d) identify all documents that support the response and contact information of persons who has each document/thing.  Again, Defendant provided supplemental responses to FROG No. 17.1 with the opposition brief.  Thus, the motion is denied as to FROG No. 17.1. 

Plaintiffs seek monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $6,404.90.  Although Plaintiff acknowledges that supplemental responses were received, Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to an award of sanctions because they would not have received responses unless they filed the motions.  However, Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is denied.  CCP § 2023.040 requires that the party requesting sanctions “identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought,” and Plaintiffs’ notice of motion asks only for sanctions against Defendant but not against defense counsel.  Plaintiffs have failed to provide the Court with facts to support a conclusion that the insufficient responses were the fault of Defendant only, and because Plaintiffs did not properly request sanctions against defense counsel under CCP § 2023.040, Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is denied.  Further, the Court finds that a sanctions request of $6,404.90 for a motion to compel further responses as to 3 interrogatories is excessive.

B.     RPD

Plaintiffs move to compel Defendant’s further responses to RPD Nos. 1-32. 

In opposition, Defendant argues that it provided supplemental responses to the RPD on April 24, 2023 with its opposition brief.

As supplemental responses have been provided, the motion is moot as to the RPDs.  Whether the supplemental responses are adequate will have to be determined following Plaintiffs’ review of the responses, meet and confer attempts, and a separate and updated motion to compel further responses.  

Plaintiffs seek monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $7,034.90.  The request for sanctions is denied.

C.    RFA

Plaintiffs move to compel Defendant’s further responses to RFA Nos. 5, 7-8, 13-15, and 17-28.

In opposition, Defendant argues that it provided supplemental responses to the RFA on April 24, 2023 with its opposition brief.

As supplemental responses have been provided, the motion is moot as to the RFAs.  Whether the supplemental responses are adequate will have to be determined following Plaintiffs’ review of the responses, meet and confer attempts, and a separate and updated motion to compel further responses.  

The request for sanctions is denied.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Plaintiffs Josh and Melissa Minney’s motions to compel Defendant City of Burbank’s further responses to the Form Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admission are denied.  No sanctions shall be awarded.

            Plaintiffs shall provide notice of this order.