Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 23STCV07952, Date: 2024-06-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV07952    Hearing Date: June 20, 2024    Dept: 61

A. Blackman v. El Pollo Loco, Inc.

Tentative

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production No. 21 from Defendant W.K.S. Restaurant Group is DENIED. Defendant to give notice.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks WKS’ further response to her Request for Production of Documents, Set One, No. 21. Request No. 21 seeks:

All pages of all insurance policies that may provide coverage for any claim alleged in this lawsuit, regardless of whether such coverage is in doubt or rights have been reserved.

Liability insurance information is discoverable. “A party may obtain discovery of the existence and contents of any agreement under which any insurance carrier may be liable to satisfy in whole or in part a judgment that may be entered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment. This discovery may include the identity of the carrier and the nature and limits of the coverage.” (CCP § 2017.210.)

WKS objected to the request on the grounds of confidentiality, privilege, overbreadth, undue burden, harassment, irrelevance, and that the document sought is publicly available. WKS also objected on the ground that the request is duplicative of Plaintiff’s Request No. 20 and Plaintiff’s General and Employment Law Form Interrogatories. Defendant eventually produced a heavily redacted declaration page of an insurance policy. (Falk Decl., ¶ 10, Exh. H.)

The Court finds that many of Defendant’s objections are boilerplate objections with no application to the request at issue. Request No. 21 does not improperly seek “financial, propriety, and confidential information” nor does it seek information protected by attorney-client privilege. Second, if Defendant’s insurance policies were “publicly and/or equally available to Plaintiff,” this motion would not be necessary. Third, Request No. 21 is not overbroad as it is limited to policies which may provide coverage for any claim in this lawsuit. Fourth, insurance policy information is directly relevant and discoverable. (See CCP § 2017.210.) Lastly, this request is not harassing nor unduly burdensome.

However, neither Plaintiff’s motion nor does her counsel’s declaration addresses Defendant’s statement that the request is duplicative of Request no. 20 and of Plaintiff’s interrogatories. Moreover, Defendant eventually produced two of the “Declarations” pages of its policy. (Falk Decl., ¶ 10, Exh. H.) The policy is a “for profit management liability policy” offered by Evanston Insurance Company with policy number MKLV5MML000656 for the period from July 1, 2023 to July 1, 2024. The second page shows that the policy coverage includes “Employment practices and third party discrimination liability” for up to $3,000,000. (Id.) Plaintiff has not shown how WKS’ supplemental response is insufficient.

The motion is therefore DENIED.