Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 20STCV34421, Date: 2024-11-22 Tentative Ruling
All rulings shown here are TENTATIVE ONLY, and thus oral argument WILL be heard. All Counsel are still required to attend.
Case Number: 20STCV34421 Hearing Date: November 22, 2024 Dept: 45
Hearing date: November 22, 2024
Moving Party: Defendants Those Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s, London Subscribing To Policy Number Hgb0140086 And Washington & Finnegan, Inc.
Responding Party: Plaintiffs Subhash Mantri
Motion: Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories to Plaintiff Subhash Mantri, Set One; Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $431.50
Tentative Ruling: The Court considered the moving papers and opposition, no reply has been filed. Defendants Those Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s, London Subscribing To Policy Number Hgb0140086 And Washington & Finnegan, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories to Plaintiff Subhash Mantri, Set One, is DENIED as moot.
Background
Sheila Mantri (Sheila) and Subhash Mantri (Subhash) (collectively, Plaintiffs) (because of Plaintiffs’ shared last name, the Court refers to Plaintiffs individually by their first names) filed this action on September 9, 2020 against defendants Those Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s, London Subscribing To Policy Number Hgb0140086 (Lloyd’s); Joan Allyn Schultz dba Joan Schultz Insurance Agency (erroneously sued as two separate entities); and Washington & Finnegan, Inc. (WF), alleging causes of action for (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (3) Negligence; (4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (5) Professional Negligence; and (6) Fraud.
The Complaint alleges the following: Plaintiffs’ home was burglarized on November 30, 2019. (Compl., ¶ 1.) Plaintiffs submitted a claim to their insurance carrier, Lloyd’s. (Ibid.) Instead of investigating, adjusting, and paying the claim in a timely an reasonable manner, Lloyd’s unreasonably and in bad faith disputed the veracity and extent of the claim, ignored reliable documents that support the claim, and has thus far paid Plaintiffs nothing. (Ibid.) Further, Plaintiffs learned that their insurance broker for their insurance policy, Joan Schultz Insurance Agency, negligently and fraudulently obtained woefully inadequate insurance coverage for Plaintiffs’ personal property. (Id., at ¶ 2.) Schultz negligently and fraudulently represented to Plaintiffs that they could only obtain personal property coverage with a limit of $300,000. (Ibid.)
On December 13, 2023, Defendants Llyod’s and WF (Moving Defendants) filed the instant Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories to Plaintiff Subhash Mantri, Set One.
On November 8, 2024, Plaintiff Subhash filed his Opposition.
No reply has been filed.
Discussion
Legal Standard
The propounding party may bring motions to compel inspection or further responses to interrogatories or requests for production if it believes (1) the responses received are evasive, or (2) incomplete, or (3) if the objections raised are meritless or too general. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300(a), 2031.310(a).) A respondent has the burden to justify objections in response to a motion filed to compel further responses. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)
The court shall impose a monetary sanction … against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ Proc. § 2030.300(d).)
Motion to Compel Further Responses
At issue with the instant Motion are Form Interrogatories (FROGs) Numbers 2.7, 12.4, 12.7, 50.1, 50.2 and 50.6. Each of these interrogatories request basic information regarding Plaintiff and the underlying incident, including Plaintiff’s educational history (FROG 2.7), information regarding anyone who took photographs of the scene of the incident (FROG 12.4), information regarding anyone who inspected the scene of the incident (FROG 12.7), information regarding any underlying agreements alleged in the pleadings (FROG 50.1), any breach of any agreements alleged in the pleadings (FROG 50.2), and, finally, any ambiguity regarding any agreements alleged in the pleadings (FROG 50.4). (Separate Statement ISO Defendants’ Motion to Compel (Separate Statement); Separate Statement ISO Plaintiff’s Opposition (Opp. Separate Statement).)
Moving Defendants argue that each of Plaintiff’s responses to the form interrogatories are deficient. They contend that, Plaintiff’s response to FROG 2.7 was incomplete because he only provided information about schooling he received in the United States and withheld information about his schooling in India. (Separate Statement, p. 2-3). Defendants also contend that Plaintiff’s response to FROG 12.4 was incomplete because he failed to address certain subparts of the question. (Id. at p. 4.) Further, when asked about inspections of his home, Plaintiff only identified “Law Enforcement” without providing any contact information, as requested. (Id. at p. 6.) Finally, with regard to FROGS 50.1, 50.2, and 50.4, Plaintiff’s responses were incomplete and did not address various subparts of the questions. (Id. at pp. 9, 11, 13.)
In opposition, Plaintiff contends that Moving Defendants’ motion should be denied because Moving Defendants failed to demonstrate that Plaintiff’s original responses were inadequate. In addition, though, Plaintiff also argues that the motion is mooted because, in the interim, he has served fully code compliant further responses to the form interrogatories that address each of the claimed deficiencies in the motion.
After examining the relevant filings, including the Moving Defendants’ moving papers, separate statement, and declaration, as well as Plaintiff’s opposition and separate statement, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s further responses served on Plaintiff’s own volition adequately address each of the claimed deficiencies in Moving Defendants’ motion. For example, in Plaintiff’s further response to FROG 2.7, Plaintiff provides his complete education history, including his education in India. (Opp. Separate Statement, p. 3.) And in Plaintiff’s further response to FROGs 12.4 and 12.7, Plaintiff addressed each of the subparts he previously did not address, even though Plaintiff contends that Moving Defendants already possessed such information. (Id., at pp. 4 – 6, 7 – 8.) Finally, with respect to FROGs 50.1, 50.2, and 50.4, Plaintiff provided unambiguous and express answers to each of the subparts of the interrogatories, despite also claiming that his original responses were compliant.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories to Plaintiff Subhash Mantri, Set One, is DENIED as moot.
Request for Sanctions
As stated previously, a Court must impose sanctions against a party who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ Proc. § 2030.300(d).)
Here, Moving Defendants request monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $431.50 for the cost of reasonable attorneys’ fees for making the instant motion. However, as the Court denied Moving Defendants’ motion, sanctions are not mandatory in this case. And the Court declines to exercise its discretion to award sanctions against Plaintiff given that Moving Defendants’ failed to sufficiently demonstrate the inadequacy of Plaintiff’s original responses. Further, Plaintiff did not willfully violate any court order, and in, to the contrary, provided further responses to the requests at issue without any prompting from this Court. Accordingly, the imposition of any sanctions in this matter would solely be for the punishment of Plaintiff. (See, e.g., Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992, citing Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 488, disapproved on another ground (The trial court cannot impose sanctions for misuse of the discovery process as a punishment.))
Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories to Plaintiff Subhash Mantri, Set One. And the Court DENIES Defendants’ Request for Sanctions.
It is so ordered.
Dated:
_______________________
MEL RED RECANA
Judge of the Superior Court
Hearing date: November 22, 2024
Moving Party: Defendants
Those Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s, London Subscribing To Policy Number
Hgb0140086 And Washington & Finnegan, Inc.
Responding
Party: Plaintiffs
Subhash Mantri
Motion: Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further Responses
to Request for Production of Documents, Set 1
Tentative Ruling: The
Court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.
Defendants Those Certain Underwriters At
Lloyd’s, London Subscribing To Policy Number Hgb0140086 And Washington &
Finnegan, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production
of Documents, Set 1 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The
motion is granted as to request 28 but denied as to requests 23 and 24.
Background
Sheila
Mantri (Sheila) and Subhash Mantri (Subhash) (collectively, Plaintiffs)
(because of Plaintiffs’ shared last name, the Court refers to Plaintiffs
individually by their first names) filed this action on September 9, 2020
against defendants Those Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s, London Subscribing To
Policy Number Hgb0140086 (Lloyd’s); Joan Allyn Schultz dba Joan Schultz
Insurance Agency (erroneously sued as two separate entities); and Washington
& Finnegan, Inc. (WF), alleging causes of action for (1) Breach of
Contract; (2) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing;
(3) Negligence; (4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (5)
Professional Negligence; and (6) Fraud.
The
Complaint alleges the following: Plaintiffs’ home was burglarized on November
30, 2019. (Compl., ¶ 1.) Plaintiffs submitted a claim to their insurance
carrier, Lloyd’s. (Ibid.) Instead of investigating, adjusting, and
paying the claim in a timely an reasonable manner, Lloyd’s unreasonably and in
bad faith disputed the veracity and extent of the claim, ignored reliable
documents that support the claim, and has thus far paid Plaintiffs nothing. (Ibid.)
Further, Plaintiffs learned that their insurance broker for their insurance
policy, Joan Schultz Insurance Agency, negligently and fraudulently obtained
woefully inadequate insurance coverage for Plaintiffs’ personal property. (Id.,
at ¶ 2.) Schultz negligently and fraudulently represented to Plaintiffs that
they could only obtain personal property coverage with a limit of $300,000. (Ibid.)
On
December 13, 2023, Defendants Llyod’s and WF (Moving Defendants) filed two
identical Motions to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of
Documents (RPDs), one pertaining to RPDs Set 2 served on Shaila Mantri, and the
second pertaining to RPDs Set 1 served on Subhash Mantri.
On
September 6, 2024, this Court heard the Parties’ arguments related to Moving
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to RPDs Set 2, as to Shail
Mantri. On October 25, 2024, this Court issued its revised ruling on Moving
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to RPDs Set 2, granting the
motion as to request 28 but denying the motion as to requests 23 and 24.
Now
before the Court is Moving Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to
RPDs Set 1, as to Subhash Mantri.
On
November 8, 2024, Plaintiff Subhash filed his Opposition.
On
November 15, 2024, Moving Defendants filed their Reply.
Discussion
Legal Standard
The
propounding party may bring motions to compel inspection or further responses
to interrogatories or requests for production if it believes (1) the responses
received are evasive, or (2) incomplete, or (3) if the objections raised are
meritless or too general. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300(a), 2031.310(a).) A
respondent has the burden to justify objections in response to a motion filed
to compel further responses. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000)
22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)
The
court shall impose a monetary sanction … against any party, person, or attorney
who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to
interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted
with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition
of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ Proc. § 2030.300(d).)
Analysis
At
issue with the instant Motion are RPDs, Set 1, Request Numbers 23, 24, and 28.
As both parties acknowledge and contend, these Requests are identical to the
Requests at issue in the Moving Defendants’ prior motion to compel as to RPDs
Set 2, which this Court previously heard and adjudicated. (Opposition, at p.
4:3 – 10; Reply, at p. 1:6 – 16.) As both parties acknowledge that there are no
new facts or issues ripe for the present motion, the Court adopts its ruling as
to Moving Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to RPDs Set 2, as to
Plaintiff Shail Mantri for the instant Motion to Compel Further Responses to
RPDs Set 1, as to Plaintiff Subhash Mantri.
Conclusion
Accordingly,
the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Moving Defendants’ Motion to Compel
Further Responses to Request for Production, Set 1. The motion is granted as to
request 28 but is denied as to requests 23 and 24.
It
is so ordered.
Dated:
_______________________
MEL RED RECANA
Judge of the
Superior Court