Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 22STCV31771, Date: 2023-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV31771    Hearing Date: February 14, 2023    Dept: S27

1.     Background Facts

Plaintiff, Araceli Gonzalez Herrera filed this action against Defendant, Jacqueline Palmore on 9/27/22.  Herrera alleges Palmore failed to report the ice skating instructor, Vincent’s behavior, and her failure to report the behavior contributed to Plaintiff’s damages, which are the same as those detailed in BC624620, a case in which she sues the ice rink and various others for damages arising out of the same incident. 

2.     Motion to Compel Further Responses

a.     Timeline

Plaintiff propounded form interrogatories on Defendant on 11/02/22.  At issue is FROG 4.1.  FROG 4.1 asks, “At the time of the incident, was there in effect any policy of insurance through which you were or might be insured in any manner (for example, primary, pro-rate, or excess liability coverage or medical expense coverage) for the damages, claims, or actions that have arisen out of the INCIDENT?”  It then goes on to ask for details about any such policy.

On 12/05/22, Plaintiff sent a letter indicating she had not received a response to FROG 4.1 and demanding an unequivocal response so she can make a policy limits settlement. 

Defendant served responses on 12/06/22.  Defendant asserted various objections, then states, “On information and belief, Propounding Party already has in her possession a copy of a potentially relevant insurance policy issued by Travelers; Responding Party may have had additional insurance through either ISI, PSA, or USFSA but, despite a good faith and diligent search for a copy of any such policy, has been unable to locate any such policy.” 

On 12/07/22, Plaintiff wrote and asked what Defendant did to contact PSA, ISI, or USFS to determine whether insurance is available. 

On 1/05/23, Plaintiff filed this motion. 

b.     Meet and Confer

Defendant contends Plaintiff has not properly met and conferred prior to filing this motion.  The Court agrees.  First, Plaintiff contends Defendant did not serve a verification with the responses, but Plaintiff never mentioned verification in any meet and confer letters.  Second, Plaintiff’s 12/07/22 letter asked a series of questions about Defendant’s attempts to obtain any relevant insurance policies, but did not specify when she expected a response, and did not indicate a motion to compel would be filed if there was no response.  Third, the response itself details various objections, including but not limited to an objection that the FROG was propounded before Defendant was even served with the summons and complaint and an objection on the ground that Plaintiff was planning to amend her complaint, such that the term “incident” was not well-defined, and Plaintiff did not address any of those objections in her meet and confer correspondence. 

c.     Continuance of Hearing

The Court asks the parties to meet and confer in good faith in an attempt to resolve the issues relating to the motion.  The hearing on the motion is continued for thirty days, to Tuesday, 3/14/23 at 8:30 a.m. in Department S27.  The Court is expressly not ruling on Defendant’s objections, as the parties have not met and conferred regarding the objections.

To the extent the parties are able to resolve the objections, the Court advises Defendant that her response is not code-compliant, as it does not comply with CCP §2030.220(c), which requires Defendant to make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information sought by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations unless the information is equally available to the propounding party.  Whether Defendant is insured or not is information uniquely available to Defendant herself, and she has a duty to make all necessary inquiries to determine whether she is insured or not.

If the parties are unable to resolve their issues, each party must file a declaration detailing what meet and confer efforts were undertaken and why they were not successful, and may file a brief, not to exceed five pages, concerning any unresolved issues. 

The Court notes that there is a CMC on calendar in this case on 3/09/23.  The CMC is continued to 3/14/23 to be heard concurrently with the hearing on this continued motion. 

Plaintiff 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.