Judge Layne H. Melzer, Case 2022-01241580 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Layne H. Melzer, Case: 2022-01241580, Date: 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Petitioner Metlife Auto Home

1.Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories

2.Status Conference

Before the court are Petitioner Metlife Auto & Home’s Motions to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, 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 opposition and one reply filed in case number 2022-01239745.

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 appear to only be two set for hearing on 12/1/22 and one unknown motion set on 1/5/23 in case number 2022-01241580. 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. 21^st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4^th 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. 21^st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4^th 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

A party may move to compel further responses to interrogatories on the grounds that the answer is evasive or incomplete, an exercise of the option to produce documents under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate, and/or an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

With respect to interrogatories, the burden of showing good cause does not exist. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.) If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the interrogatories. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255; Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541 [“While the party propounding interrogatories may have the burden of filing a motion to compel if it finds the answers it receives unsatisfactory, the burden of justifying any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with the party resisting an interrogatory.”].)

Merits

As an initial matter, Respondent argues that the two Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (as to the 2019 Accident and the case ending in 45 and the 2017 Accident as to the case ending in 80) are untimely. The court disagrees.

“Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, emphasis added.)

Here, it appears that verifications for the most recent supplemental discovery responses at issue in the Motions were not provided until October 12, 2022, well after the Motions were filed. (See (See Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court of Orange County (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127.)

Next, the court could only locate one Separate Statement for the two Form Interrogatory Motions on calendar. (See ROA 24 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).)

Looking at the one separate statement, Petitioner identifies a Supplemental Response as to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 6.1 – 6.7 and 10.1 – 10.3, which all state “see the Second Supplemental document production” for all intents and purposes.

Petitioner’s issue appears to be that the same response was served in all three cases even though there are distinct dates of injury, treatment, and damages. Respondent provided a chart as part of the opposition, which Petitioner finds helpful but requests it be verified.

The court orders the parties to meet and confer as to the pending Motions and the others filed but apparently not properly set for hearing. The court believes that a resolution can be reached at this stage and urges the parties to do so.