Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 22LBCP00319, Date: 2023-04-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22LBCP00319 Hearing Date: April 4, 2023 Dept: S27
1. Background
Facts
Claimant and Respondent are engaged
in underinsured motorist arbitration proceedings, with arbitration set to go
forward on 5/12/23.
2. Prior
Motion to Compel
Claimant, Kelly Hutchinson propounded
RPDs on Respondent, Allergan W.C. Holdings, Inc. on 6/17/22. On 8/26/22, Claimant filed a motion to compel
responses to RPDs. On 10/26/22, Respondent
served responses. On 10/27/22, the Court
granted Claimant’s unopposed motion, ordered responses without objections, and
imposed sanctions.
3. Motion
to Compel Further Responses
a. Parties’
Positions
Claimant moves to compel Respondent
to serve supplemental responses to RPDs, contending Respondent’s responses
remain unverified and also substantively insufficient. Respondent opposes the motion, contending the
parties considered participating in an IDC, and upon finding out this courtroom
does not conduct IDCs, should have considered participating in an informal conference
with the arbitration, who offers such services.
Respondent contends it is willing to engage in the meet and confer
process, but wishes to have the assistance of the arbitrator in doing so. Claimant, in reply, contends the Court, not
the arbitrator, is charged with resolving discovery motions in the context of
an uninsured motorist arbitration proceeding.
b. Arbitrator
or Court to Decide Issues
Discovery procedures available to
the parties in uninsured motorist cases are basically the same as those
available in California civil litigation. Ins.C. § 11580.2(f). Jurisdiction to resolve discovery disputes
(including the issuance of any orders to compel discovery) is vested in the
superior court (a) in the proper county for the filing of a lawsuit against the
uninsured motorist for bodily injury arising from the accident or (b) in any
county specified in the policy as a proper county for arbitration or action on
the policy. See Ins.C. § 11580.2(f)(1),
(2); Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, 921-926. 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). Id. at 927-928. The court's power to resolve discovery
disputes and issue appropriate orders includes the power to impose discovery
sanctions. Id. at 928-929. The superior
court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and rule on discovery matters arising
in a UM arbitration. The arbitrator has no such power. Id. at 924-926.
Notably, Respondent does not
contend otherwise in opposition to the motion.
Respondent contends only that the parties *should* talk to the arbitrator,
who provides pre-arbitration dispute resolution services. Claimant was free to engage in
pre-arbitration dispute resolution services if she chose to do so prior to
filing the motion, but she was certainly not obligated to do so. When Claimant did not agree to engage in such
services, Respondent had the opportunity to oppose the motion on its merits,
but chose not to do so. The Court will
rule on the motion on its merits, as Claimant was under no obligation to submit
the dispute to the arbitrator for consideration.
c. Merits
The Court has reviewed Respondent’s
responses to the RPDs at issue, and they are patently insufficient. By way of example, Respondent propounded
photographs in response to RPD 1, but then stated that no photographs exist in
response to RPD 3. RPD 5 asks for
collision reports, crime reports, and investigation reports, and Respondent
responds by stating it will produce “writings relating to the incident,” which
is not what is requested by way of the RPD.
The Court will not go through each and every RPD, as Respondent did not
even attempt to argue its responses are sufficient in opposition to the motion.
Additionally, Respondent has not
verified the responses, which is absolutely mandatory per Code.
Respondent is ordered to provide further
responses within ten days. The responses
must be verified.
d. Sanctions
Claimant had to go through many
rounds of meeting and conferring plus filing a motion to compel to obtain initial
responses. The responses were not verified. Claimant went through many rounds of meeting
and conferring in an attempt to obtain substantive further responses, and Respondent
did not meaningfully respond. Even when
faced with a motion, Respondent attempted to prolong the matter, rather than
providing any analysis concerning the sufficiency of its responses. Unless Respondent shows good cause to avoid
sanctions, sanctions are mandatory per CCP §2030.300(d), as well as §§2023.010
and 2023.030. Respondent has clearly not
done so.
Claimant’s attorney’s declaration
fully supports the request for sanctions in the amount of $1711.65, and the request
is granted in full. Sanctions are sought
and imposed against Respondent and its attorney of record, jointly and
severally. They are ordered to pay sanctions
in the total amount of $1711.65 to Claimant, by and through counsel of record,
within twenty days.
Claimant is ordered to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit
on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as
directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department
does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative
and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the
party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party
submitting on the tentative. If any party does not submit on the tentative, the
party should make arrangements to appear remotely at the hearing on this
matter.