Judge: Layne H. Melzer, Case: 2022-01239745, Date: 2023-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Petitioner MetLife Auto & Home

1. MTC Further Responses

 

Before the court are Petitioner Metlife Auto & Home’s Motions to compel further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Sets One, against Respondent Latonya Kellum in case numbers 2022-01239745 and 2022-01241580. A status conference is set in case number 2022-01241585. All three cases are related. Each case involves a car accident where Respondent claims injuries in 2019, 2017, and 2014, where she subsequently made claims against Petitioner for underinsured motorist coverage.

 

There is only one late-filed response filed in Case No. 2022-01239745 that makes no substantive opposition to any of the Motions.

 

The task of reviewing these two Motions was rendered far more difficult for several reasons. Petitioner filed six different motions between the three cases but there were only two set for hearing on 12/1/22 and two Motions set on 1/5/23. There are no future hearing dates in any of the three cases.

 

Some Motions were amended and filed several times and in large documents consisting up to 1,726 pages each, many of which were generically titled “Notice of Hearing”. The exhibits to the Declarations were not properly electronically bookmarked, rendering the hundreds and hundreds of pages of exhibits unwieldy.  (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.110(f)(4).) Many of the exhibits attached to the various motions do not appear pertinent to the motions.

 

The court has jurisdiction over discovery issues.

 

“[T]he 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; See also Insurance Code §11580.2(f)(2)). 

 

The party seeking court assistance in connection with a discovery dispute need not file and serve on the other party a formal complaint. An “application to commence discovery” coupled, e.g., with a motion to compel compliance, may be filed with the court and, where the party against whom discovery is sought is represented by counsel, served upon counsel (per CCP § 1015; see CCP § 1012—service on counsel by mail). [Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co., supra, 117 CA4th at 927-928.]

 

Additionally, the discovery procedures available to the parties in uninsured motorist cases are basically the same as those available in California civil litigation: Per Insurance Code §11580(f), “Title 4 (commencing with Section 2016.010) of Part 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall be applicable to these determinations, and all rights, remedies, obligations, liabilities and procedures set forth in Title 4 (commencing with Section 2016.010) of Part 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall be available to both the insured and the insurer at any time after the accident, both before and after the commencement of arbitration, if any….”

 

As noted by the Court in Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, “the statute then adopts the California Discovery Act in its entirety.” (Id. at 920). Further, the code permits discovery “at any time after the accident, both before and after the commencement of arbitration, if any.” (Insurance Code §11580.2(f)).

 

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.220 requires a party responding to an inspection demand to respond with (1) a statement that it will comply, (2) a representation that it does not have the ability to comply, or (3) an objection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.) An agreement to comply must be rather specific as to what is agreed to. It must state that the production and inspection will be allowed (in whole or in part); and that the documents or things in the demanded category that are in the responding party's possession, custody, or control will be produced. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.)

 

On receipt of the response, the demanding party may move to compel further response if any of the following apply: (1) a statement of compliance is incomplete; (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete or evasive; (3) an objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) The motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b).)

 

Absent a claim of privilege or attorney work product, the burden of showing good cause may be met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance. “If ‘good cause’ is shown by the moving party, the burden is then on the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2020) ¶ 8:1496, citing Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)

 

Merits

The court could only locate one Separate Statement for the two Document Motions on calendar. (See ROA 26 in case number 2022-01241580, which involves the 2017 Accident.) A notice of motion for order compelling answers must be accompanied by a separate document setting forth the following information, unless the court permits the moving party to submit a concise outline of the matters in dispute. (CRC 3.1345(c).)

 

Thus, any purported Motion as to the 2014 and 2019 injuries is denied.

 

Looking at the one separate statement, at issue are Demand for Identification and Production of Documents, Sets One, Nos. 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 22, 23, and 24.

 

A motion for order compelling further responses “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” [CCP § 2031.310(b)(1); Kirkland v. Sup.Ct. (Guess?, Inc.) (2002) 95 CA4th 92, 98] Declarations are generally used to show the requisite “good cause” for an order to compel inspection. The declarations must contain “specific facts” rather than mere conclusions. [Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Paine Webber Real Estate Secur.) (1991) 233 CA3d 1138, 1141—P's desire to review documents for “context” is “a patently insufficient ground” for production of sensitive commercial information]

 

The court finds that Petitioner has not shown good cause for the breadth of the documents requested.

 

Even if the court looked at the merits, Petitioner takes issue with the fact that Respondent essentially transmitted over one thousand pages of medical and billing records, via a DVD, without clearly identifying which records pertained to the alleged October 12, 2017, date of loss. While documents must be sorted and labeled to correspond with the categories in the document demand, here each request is so broad that it reasonably includes documents that relate to the 2014 injury. [See CCP § 2031.280(a)] (Prior law permitted production of documents as they were kept in the ordinary course of business.)

 

Thus, the Motion(s) are all denied.

 

2.Status Conference