Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 21STCV05404, Date: 2025-06-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV05404    Hearing Date: June 12, 2025    Dept: 72

`

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

The parties have filed discovery motions against one another.  The Court decides both motions in this order.

Defendant AmGuard Insurance Company (“AmGuard”) moves for an order compelling Plaintiff B&S Ventures Inc. (“BSV”) to (1) fully respond and produce all responsive documents to AmGuard’s Request for Production of Documents (“RFP”) Nos. 45-62 and 70-76; and (2) fully respond to AmGuard’s Special Interrogatory (“SROG”) Nos. 46-50 and 53.

The Court GRANTS AmGuard’s motion to compel further responses to the RFPs at issue. Because BSV raises an attorney-client privilege objection, BSV shall produce a privilege log indicating all of the documents that are being withheld on the basis of a privilege.  The Court GRANTS AmGuard’s motion to compel further responses to the SROGs at issue.

            BSV moves for an order compelling AmGuard to fully respond and produce all responsive documents to BSV’s RFP Nos. 3, 5, 13, 21, 27, and 36 in BSV’s notice of deposition for AmGuard’s person most knowledgeable (“PMK”) regarding claims handling. BSV also moves for an order reopening discovery on a particular issue.

The Court GRANTS BSV’s motion to compel production of documents IN PART. In response to RFP Nos. 3, 5, 13, 21, 27, and 36, AmGuard shall produce all responsive documents from 2018 to the present.   

The Court GRANTS BSV’s motion to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of allowing BSV to conduct discovery about AmGuard’s Estimate Review Team. BSV may conduct written discovery and may conduct a PMK deposition regarding the Estimate Review Team not to exceed 4 hours.

All parties shall produce their discovery responses within 20 days of this order.

Background

Plaintiff B&S Ventures Inc. (“BSV”) is a Wingstop franchisee that owns and operates several Wingstop restaurants, including one located at 1685 Pacific Coast Highway, Unit D, Harbor City, CA 90710 (“Harbor City Store”). (Additional Material Fact (“AMF”) 1, 3.) Plaintiff Barjor Soli Pithawalla (“Pithawalla”) is the president and sole owner of BSV. (AMF 4.)

BSV is the named insured under AmGuard policy number BSBP959456 (the “Policy”) with effective dates of December 16, 2018 to December 16, 2019. (Undisputed Material Fact (“UMF”) 5.) BSV’s members and partners and their spouses are also insureds. (Response to Undisputed Material Fact (“RUMF”) 5.) The Harbor City Store was an insured location. (UMF 6.) The Policy provides coverage for business income loss for actual loss sustained up to 12 months and for an additional 30 days after damaged property is repaired and operations are resumed. (RUMF 7.) 

On September 12, 2019, a car ran into the Harbor City Store and caused extensive damage to Plaintiffs’ storefront and the interior of the store. Plaintiff provided AmGuard with timely notice of a claim under the Policy with respect to the incident.

AmGuard provided compensation under the claim, but the parties dispute whether AmGuard fully satisfied its obligations to cover repair costs and business interruption costs under the Policy.

Plaintiffs filed this action against AmGuard and Carmen Martinez (collectively, “Defendants”) on February 10, 2021, alleging (1) breach of contract re: BSV; (2) breach of contract re: Pithawalla; (3) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing re: B&S; (4) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing re: Pithawalla; and (5) negligence. The first four causes of action were raised against AmGuard, and the fifth, for negligence, was raised against Martinez.

On January 24, 2024, the Court entered a judgment against Pithawalla pursuant to its previous granting of AmGuard’s motion for summary adjudication against Pithawalla and determining, over Pithawalla’s objection that AmGuard may recover costs from Pithawalla according to proof. In granting summary judgment, the Court found that Pithawalla lacked standing to assert his claims against AmGuard because he was not an insured and did not have an ownership interest in the affect property other than his ownership interest in BSV

On March 23, 2025, BSV stipulated to strike its claim for damages for lost business opportunities.

Discussion

AmGuard’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production

AmGuard moves to compel further responses to its Request for Production of Documents Nos. 45-62 and 70-76.

BSV argues regarding AmGuard’s request for PPP loan documents that such documents are not admissible. But admissibility is not the test – discovery need only be reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Here, BSV’s financial state is at issue, including the issue of when it had the money to make the necessary repairs. Documents showing loans that BSV received are reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence on this issue.

BSV argues that it has already produced responsive documents. If BSV has no more responsive documents, then it should say so in its responses. If it does have more documents, it should produce them.

BSV argues that documents regarding BSV’s opening of new Wingstop locations is not relevant because BSV withdrew its claim for lost business opportunities. But these documents nevertheless go to BSV’s financial condition. The same is true for the requested settlement documents with the underlying tortfeasor.

BSV shall fully respond to the interrogatories at issue. Because BSV raises an attorney-client privilege objection, BSV shall produce a privilege log indicating the documents that are being withheld on the basis of a privilege.

AmGuard’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

AmGuard seeks to compel further responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 46-50 and 53.  The Court orders that BSV shall fully respond to each of these interrogatories.

BSV’s Motion to Compel Production

During BSVs deposition of AmGuard’s PMK regarding claims handling, BSV’s counsel learned that AmGuard has a unit called the Estimate Review Team which operates under a separate set of internal policies and procedures. BSV contends that the testimony revealed that Corey Massaro, who BSV knew had been involved in the handling of its claim, was a member of the Estimate Review Team and, purportedly, approved a claim amount lower than all estimates which had been provided to him.

In the RFPs at issue, BSV requested documents relating to AmGuard’s policies and procedures, investigation, and adjustment relating to Plaintiff’s claims. AmGuard produced no documents regarding the Estimate Review Team. AmGuard contends that this position is justified because BSV’s RFPs did not request information about the Estimate Review Team by name. The Court disagrees. Documents regarding the Estimate Review Team’s policies and procedures are necessarily relevant if it was involved in evaluating BSV’s claim.

In response to RFP Nos. 3, 5, 13, 21, 27, and 36, AmGuard shall produce all responsive documents from 2018 to the present.

Reopen Discovery

“In exercising its discretion to grant or deny [a motion to reopen discovery], the court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to, the following:

(1) The necessity and the reasons for the discovery.

(2) The diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier.

(3) Any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party.

(4) The length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b).)

            Here, BSV promptly sought discovery after learning of the Estimate Review Team’s existence. Further, there is evidence suggesting that the Estimate Review Team, including Massaro, played a key role in the eventual decision on BSV’s claim. BSV would be prejudiced if it were forced to go to trial without more complete information on the Estimate Review Team. Trial is set for October 20, 2025, and permitting further discovery will likely not delay it.

            The Court grants the motion to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of allowing BSV to conduct discovery about AmGuard’s Estimate Review Team. BSV may conduct written discovery and may conduct a PMK deposition regarding the Estimate Review Team not to exceed 4 hours.