Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STLC00117, Date: 2023-04-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STLC00117 Hearing Date: April 20, 2023 Dept: 26
MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
(CCP § 2031.310)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant/Cross-Complainant Eli’s Collision Repair of South
Bay, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery Requests and for
Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF/CROSS-DEFENDANT ESURANCE CASUALTY AND
PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY IS TO PRODUCE CODE-COMPLIANT FURTHER RESPONSES TO
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, NOS. 5-10, WITHOUT OBJECTIONS, WITHIN
20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. PLAINTIFF/CROSS-DEFENDANT ESURANCE CASUALTY AND
PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY AND COUNSEL OF RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY
ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $991.65 TO COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT
ELI’S COLLISION REPAIR OF SOUTH BAY, INC. WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS
ORDER.
ANALYSIS:
On January 7, 2021, Plaintiff
Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company (“Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant”) filed the instant action for unjust
enrichment against Defendant Eli’s Collision Repair of South Bay, Inc. (“Defendant/Cross-Complainant”).
Defendant/Cross-Complainant filed a Cross-Complaint for (1) money due on a
written contract; (2) quantum meruit; (3) account stated; and (4) open book account,
on April 27, 2021. The Cross-Complaint alleges that Defendant/Cross-Complainant
performed automotive work on the vehicles of persons insured by
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant (“the subject insureds”) for which it was not fully
paid. (Cross-Compl., ¶¶8-12.)
On March 17, 2023, Defendant/Cross-Complainant
filed the instant Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery Responses and
for Monetary Sanctions. No opposition has been filed to date.
Discussion
Procedural Requirements
Notice of the
motion to compel further must be given “within 45 days of service of the
verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later
date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in
writing,” otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further
response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.310, subd. (c).) Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant served
Defendant/Cross-Complainant with
supplemental responses to the Request for Production of Documents, Set One, on February
24, 2023. (Motion, Phan Decl., ¶8 and Exh. E.) The instant Motion, therefore,
was timely filed and served on March 17, 2023.
Also, the Motion must
be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300,
subd. (b)(1).) Defendant/Cross-Complainant met and conferred with counsel for
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant regarding these responses from June 2022 to February
2023 but could not resolve the discovery dispute. (Id. at ¶¶4-8 and Exh.
C.) The meet and confer requirement is satisfied.
Finally, Cal. Rules
of Court Rule 3.1345 requires all motions or responses involving further
discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the
response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further
responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a).) Alternatively, “the court
may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request
and each response in dispute.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(2).) The
Motion is accompanied by a separate statement. (Separate Statement, filed 03/17/23.)
Request for Production of Documents, Nos. 5-10
Defendant/Cross-Complainant requests production of documents
that (No. 5) relate to communications about the insurance claims made by the subject insureds; (No. 6) reflect claims
made by the subject insureds; (No. 7)
support Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s contention that it does not owe the
allegedly outstanding amounts; (No. 8) are the applicable insurance
policies for the subject insureds; (No.
9) are the full and complete file and notes for the subject insureds; and (No.
10) are the guidelines or manuals relating to
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s procedures for the proper handling of the subject
insureds’ claims.
In response to each request, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant
asserted objections and then stated that discovery and investigation are
continuous and on-going. (Separate Statement, filed 03/17/23.) The objections
state that the requests are compound, vague, ambiguous, not reasonably particularized,
and seek production of documents that are privileged. (Ibid.) As the
discovery responses were not served with verifications, any factual statements
made in response to the discovery requests are tantamount to no response at
all. (Appleton v Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) The
objections are not required to be verified but must have merit. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2031.250, subd. (a); Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior
Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 657-658.)
The objections do not explain why the requests are compound,
vague, ambiguous, or not reasonably particularized, which is Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s
burden given the broad scope of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2017.010,
2017.020; Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549.) Specifically,
the objections do not indicate what terms in the requests, if any, are compound,
vague, ambiguous, or not reasonably-particularized. The responses do not
address the definitions included with the Requests for Production, Set One.
(See Motion, Phan Decl., Exh. B). Finally, the responses fail to include “sufficient
factual information” to evaluate the claimed privilege or a privilege log, as
required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240. (Code Civ. Proc., §
2031.240, subd. (c)(1).) In fact, no information is provided at all to evaluate
the claimed privileges.
Based on the foregoing, Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s
request for Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant to serve further responses to the Request
for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 5-10 is granted. Defendant/Cross-Complainant
is also entitled to an award of sanctions, which have been properly noticed.
(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, 2023.010, 2023.030.) Pursuant to a lodestar
calculation, the request for monetary sanctions is granted in the amount of $991.65
based on three hours of attorney time billed at $310.00 per hour and $61.65 in costs.
(Motion, Phan Decl., ¶10.) The sanctions are awarded jointly and severally
against Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant and counsel of record.
Conclusion
Defendant/Cross-Complainant Eli’s Collision Repair of South
Bay, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery Requests and for Monetary
Sanctions is GRANTED.
PLAINTIFF/CROSS-DEFENDANT ESURANCE CASUALTY AND PROPERTY
INSURANCE COMPANY IS TO PRODUCE CODE-COMPLIANT FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, NOS. 5-10, WITHOUT OBJECTIONS, WITHIN 20
DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. PLAINTIFF/CROSS-DEFENDANT ESURANCE CASUALTY AND
PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY AND COUNSEL OF RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY
ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $991.65 TO COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT
ELI’S COLLISION REPAIR OF SOUTH BAY, INC. WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS
ORDER.
Moving party to give notice.