Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV00614, Date: 2024-04-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV00614, Date: 2024-04-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV00614 Hearing Date: April 16, 2024 Dept: C

Charlie Lara vs Parsec, Inc.

Case No.: 23NWCV00614

Hearing Date: April 16, 2024 @ 10:30 AM

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Charlie Lara’s Motion to Compel Further Response Request for Production is DENIED. The Court declines to impose sanctions.

Defendant to give notice.

Plaintiff Charlie Lara (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel further response to Request for Production No. 9 (Set One).

Background

This lawsuit arises out of injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff on March 13, 2021. Plaintiff alleges he was a pedestrian when he was struck by a driver employed by Defendant Parsec, Inc. (“Defendant”). (Complaint, p. 4.)

On July 07, 2023, Plaintiff propounded Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Request for Admission (Set One) and Request for Production (Set One). After multiple extensions, Defendant served responses on August 29, 2023.

Meet and Confer Requirement

A motion¿to compel further responses to requests for production “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(2).)¿ The declaration must state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented in the motion.¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040.)¿

The Court finds that Plaintiff has fulfilled the meet and confer requirement.

Separate Statement

A motion to compel further responses requires a separate statement. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).) Plaintiff properly filed separate statements.

Legal Standard

A party may make a demand for production of documents and propound interrogatories without leave of court at any time 10 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, the party to whom the demand is directed, whichever occurs first. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.020, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.020, subd. (b).) The demand for production of documents is not limited by number, but the request must comply with the formatting requirements in Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.030.

The party whom the request is propounded upon is required to respond within 30 days after service of a demand, but the parties are allowed to informally agree to an extension and confirm any such agreement in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.060, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.070, subd. (a) - (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.070, subd. (a) - (b).)

If a party fails to timely respond to a request for production or interrogatories, the party to whom the request is directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230, and waives any objection, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

Discussion

Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s response to Request for Production No. 9 is incomplete and evasive. Request for Production No. 9 seeks:

All DOCUMENTS or ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION which evidence and/or reflect insurance policies for which YOU may be insured and which may have been in effect at the time of the INCIDENT, including, but not limited to, commercial, excess coverage, or umbrella policies and including the entire policy, endorsements, riders, and declaration pages.

Defendant responded to Request for Production No. 9 with objections. During the meet and confer process, Defendant provided a link to the declaration page for Defendant’s insurance policy. Plaintiff contends that the declaration page provided by Defendant is for an “Excess Commercial Liability Policy” (Ebrahim Decl., ¶ 11, Ex. I.) Plaintiff’s Counsel, Rassa Ebrahim, asked Defendant’s Counsel, Michael Fabrega, why the declarations page was an “excess” policy and whether there was an underlying policy. (Ebrahim Decl., ¶ 12, Ex. J.) Mr. Fabrega replied, “You have the correct dec page.” (Ibid.) In a later email, Mr. Fabrega stated “[the excess policy] is the applicable policy. There is not a below policy…” (Ebrahim Decl., ¶ 12, Ex. K.) Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s responses are evasive.

In Opposition, Mr. Fabrega declares, “I am informed, and continue to be informed, that there is NOT a separate policy beneath the Chubb Group policy implicated by this litigation (Chubb Group, Policy No. XSL157202A, $750,000 Retained Limit and $2,000,000 Occurrence Limit).” (Fabrega Decl., ¶ 9.) This response, made under penalty of perjury, appears to be code-compliant in so far as Mr. Fabrega is acting as an agent on behalf of Defendant, a corporation. (CCP § 2031.250.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response is DENIED.

Sanctions

The court shall impose a monetary sanction against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories or demand for production of documents unless the party subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h), 2033.290, subd. (d).)

The Court determines that Plaintiff acted with substantial justification in light of Defendant’s August 29, 2023 objections.