Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV17013, Date: 2025-04-17 Tentative Ruling

At issue are Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One, and Requests for Production, Set One, served on Defendant Jeremy Paige Sandoval. Although Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts could have been more thorough, the parties participated in an Informal Discovery Conference on April 1, 2025, but were unable to resolve the dispute.

With respect to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One, counsel for Defendant advised the Court that Plaintiff is withdrawing the motion to compel further responses to those requests. Plaintiff did not file a reply disputing this representation. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to Requests for Admission, Set One, is taken off calendar.

At issue are Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production, Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, and 40.

Defendant responded as follows: “After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, and to the extent Responding Party understands this request, the following response is provided: See documents previously exchanged by the parties and/or obtained by subpoena during the course of this litigation. Responding Party will produce any other responsive non-privileged documents in his possession, custody, or control pertaining to the INCIDENT set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint.”

First, the response references “documents previously exchanged by the parties and/or obtained by subpoena” without identifying the specific documents or associating them with the corresponding request numbers. This violates Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280(a), which mandates that “[a]ny documents or category of documents produced in response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.” A vague reference to prior productions without properly indexing them by request number is insufficient.

Second, the response does not clearly state whether Defendant is complying in whole or in part with each request. Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.220 requires that a statement of compliance must specify whether the response is full or partial and must affirm that all responsive documents within the party’s possession, custody, or control will be produced. The phrase “Responding Party will produce any other responsive non-privileged documents” is somewhat ambiguous and does not confirm full compliance.

Accordingly, the responses to RFP Nos. 5–7, 9, and 37 are deficient. Defendant is compelled to serve code compliant further responses within 20 days of the date of this order.

Defendant responded as follows: “Subject to and without waiving said objections, after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, and to the extent Responding Party understands this request, the following response is provided: Responding Party is not presently aware of any video of the INCIDENT set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint.”

This response is not code-compliant. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230, when asserting an inability to comply, the responding party must:

The response fails to state whether any responsive video ever existed or what happened to it and does not identify any third party who may possess such a video. Accordingly, the response is deficient, and Defendant is compelled to provide code compliant further response within 20 days of the date of this order.

Defendant responded as follows: “Subject to and without waiving said objections, after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, and to the extent Responding Party understands this request, the following response is provided: Responding Party does not have possession, custody, or control of responsive documents. This request is better directed to other parties to this litigation.”

Defendant’s response does not specify the reason for the inability to comply, nor does it identify any person or entity believed to possess the requested documents.

Accordingly, the responses to RFP Nos. 30 and 31 are deficient. Defendant is compelled to serve code compliant further within 20 days of the date of this order.

Request for Production No. 36: Copies of any insurance policies and their declaration pages (including any umbrella, excess, commercial, general liability policies) which provide coverage or may provide coverage to YOU for the allegations referred to in PLAINTIFF’S Complaint.

Response to Request No. 36: Subject to and without waiving said objections, the following response is provided: Responding Party will produce his declaration page based on the information presently known to Responding Party.

This response is deficient because it fails to state whether all responsive documents will be produced or only some. A proper response under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.220 must clearly indicate whether the responding party will comply in whole or in part, and whether all documents in the party’s possession, custody, or control will be produced.

Defendant argues that under Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.210, disclosure of insurance policies should be limited to those that may be liable to satisfy a judgment in the action. Defendant contends that this excludes excess policies with coverage that attaches only above the potential judgment amount, such as policies covering damages above $2.5 million when Plaintiff is claiming less than $900,000. Defendant invokes the absurdity doctrine, asserting that requiring disclosure of all excess or umbrella policies in every case would lead to unreasonable consequences. (Younger v. Superior Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 102, 113.)

However, based on the plain language of section 2017.210, a party is entitled to discover the existence and contents of any insurance agreement under which an insurer may be liable to satisfy any part of a judgment that may be entered in the action. The statute does not limit disclosure based on the amount of damages alleged or whether the policy is primary or excess. Courts have interpreted this provision broadly, requiring disclosure of all policies that may potentially be implicated by the judgment, regardless of the amount claimed. Accordingly, Defendant is required to disclose all insurance policies that may provide coverage for any portion of the judgment, including excess or umbrella policies.

Defendant is compelled to serve code compliant further responses within 20 days of the date of this order.

Defendant has served further responses to RFP Nos. 33, 34, 38, and 40. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion as to these requests is moot. If Plaintiff remains dissatisfied with the further responses, Plaintiff is to engage in additional meet and confer efforts regarding those responses.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Judge of the Superior Court