Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 24SMCV04000, Date: 2025-01-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24SMCV04000 Hearing Date: January 22, 2025 Dept: M
CASE NAME: Gerard Butler v. AIG Property Casualty Company
CASE NO.: 24SMCV04000
MOTION: AIG
Property Casualty Company’s Motion to Quash Deposition Notice for Deposition of
Kristen Davis, or in the Alternative for a Protective Order in Pending Underinsured
Motorist Arbitration Proceeding
HEARING DATE: 1/22/2025
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of a car accident involving an
underinsured motorist. On August 15, 2024, AIG Property Casualty Company
(“AIG”) commenced this action by filing an Application to Commence Discovery in
a Pending Underinsured Motorist Arbitration Matter (“Application”).
The Application refers to AIG as the Respondent, Gerard
Butler as the Claimant, and alleges the following: Claimant is claiming underinsured motorist
benefits under an AIG insurance policy.
(App. p. 1:26-27.) The policy and
relevant Insurance Code statute require the parties to resolve disputes through
arbitration. (App. pp. 1:27-2:1.) As part of the arbitration proceeding,
Claimant served AIG with a Notice of Deposition of Kristin Davis, a Senior
Complex Claims Advisor at Sedgwick Claims, Inc. (“Sedgwick”), which provides
claims handling services for AIG. (App.
p. 2:3-5.) As explained in the
concurrently filed motion to quash the deposition notice, a discovery dispute
has arisen between the parties regarding that deposition. (App. p. 2:11-13.) Insurance Code section 11580.2(f) states that
the discovery provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall be utilized. (App. p. 2:8-9.) Therefore, “Respondent, through this
Application, requests that the Superior Court resolve said discovery dispute
pursuant to Insurance Code § 11580.2.”
(App. p. 2:13-14.)
On August 15, 2024, AIG filed the instant motion to
quash the deposition notice or, in the alternative, issue a protective order. On
January 8, 2025, Claimant filed his opposition to the motion. No reply has been
filed.
LEGAL STANDARD
Insurance
Code section 11580.2(a) requires “all automobile insurance policies delivered
in California, and which cover bodily injury liability, to include insurance
for amounts the insured is legally entitled to recover as damages for bodily
injury or wrongful death from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor
vehicle.” (Miranda v. 21st Century
Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, 920 (“Miranda”).) “[T]he
determination as to whether the insured shall be legally entitled to recover
damages, … shall be made by agreement between the insured and the insurer or,
in the event of disagreement, by arbitration.’
(§ 11580.2, subd. (f).)” (Miranda,
supra, 117 Cal.App.4th at p. 920.)
Insurance
Code section 11580.2, “adopts the California Civil Discovery Act in its
entirety. (Miranda, supra,
117 Cal.App.4th at pp. 920-921, citing Insurance Code § 11580.2, subd. (f); see
also Briggs v. Resolution Remedies (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1395,
1401, fn. 6 [“Insurance Code section 11580.2, subdivision (f) commits discovery
disputes in uninsured motorist arbitrations to the superior court.” [Citation]”].) “The Civil Discovery Act sets
out six methods by which litigants can obtain pretrial disclosure of relevant
information: (a) depositions; (b) interrogatories; (c) inspections of
documents, things, and places; (d) physical and mental examinations; (e) requests
for admissions; and (f) exchanges of expert trial witness information. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2019.010.)” (City of Los Angeles v.
PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP (2024) 17 Cal.5th 46, 61.)
Under
the Act, “a party may … move for an order staying the taking of the deposition
and quashing the deposition notice.
[The] motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under
[Code of Civil Procedure] Section 2016.040.
The taking of the deposition is stayed pending the determination of this
motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2025.410,
subd. (c); 2016.040 [“A meet and confer declaration in
support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith
attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion”].)
In
addition, “[b]efore, during, or after a deposition, any party, any deponent, or
any other affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a
protective order. [That] motion shall [also]
be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd.
(a).) “The court, for good cause shown,
may make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or
other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment,
or oppression, or undue burden and expense.
[The] protective order may include, but is not limited to, one or more
of the following directions: ¶ (1) That the
deposition not be taken at all.” (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (b).)
ANALYSIS
Meet
and Confer
The parties met and conferred prior
to AIG filing this motion. (Declaration
of James P. Wagoner, ¶¶ 5, 7.)
Discussion
AIG argues that quashing the deposition notice
or issuing a protective order preventing the deposition of Kristin
Davis (“Davis”) from taking place is appropriate because the information Davis
possesses came from her communications with counsel, and, therefore, that
information is protected and non-discoverable under the attorney-client
privilege. (Motion, pp. 3:25-27,
5:17-28.) AIG further argues that “[i]f
Claimant seeks information regarding the claim, there are more convenient, less
burdensome, less expensive, and certainly more fruitful discovery options
available. As such, the Court should
grant this Motion to Quash the Notice of Deposition, or in the alternative,
issue a Protective Order.” (Motion, pp.
3:27-4:4.) In opposition, Claimant argues (among other things) that Davis
verified AIG’s discovery responses (interrogatories and requests for admission)
and, therefore, Claimant has a right to depose her. (Opposition, p. 1:22-25.)
Responses to interrogatories and
requests for admission “must be signed by the responding party under oath. ([Code Civ. Proc.] §§ 2030.250, subd. (a); §
2033.240, subd. (a).) The applicable
statutes provide, identically, ‘If that party is a public or private
corporation, or a partnership, association, or governmental agency, one of its
officers or agents shall sign the response under oath on behalf of that party.’
(§§ 2030.250, subd. (b); 2033.260, subd.
(b).)” (Melendrez, supra, 215
Cal.App.4th at p. 1351.)
As Claimant argues, “when an individual
verifies discovery responses, further discovery can be directed to that individual
to determine the sources for the initial responses.” (Melendrez v. Superior Court (2013)
215 Cal.App.4th 1343, 1352 (“Melendrez”).) This is true even if an attorney verifies a
discovery response as an officer or agent of a party. (See Ibid. [“An attorney cannot
verify a response on behalf of an individual party. [Citation.]
However, an attorney may verify a response as officer or agent of a
corporate party”].) “Doing so … will
constitute a limited waiver of the attorney-client and work product privileges,
‘during any subsequent discovery from that attorney concerning the identity of
the sources of the information contained in the response.’ [Citations.]”
(Ibid.)
Here, AIG has not filed a reply to Claimant’s
opposition disputing that Davis verified all of AIG’s interrogatories and
requests for admission. Therefore, the Court finds it proper to deny the motion
and require AIG to assert its attorney-client privilege objections during the
deposition.
For those reasons, the Motion
to Quash Deposition Notice for Deposition of Kristen Davis, or in the
Alternative for a Protective Order in Pending Underinsured Motorist Arbitration
Proceeding is DENIED. The Court awards $1,500
in sanctions against AIG and their counsel of record, jointly and severally.
Sanctions are payable within 30 days.