Judge: Michael D. Washington, Case: 37-2022-00051394-CU-PA-NC, Date: 2024-04-26 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 25, 2024

04/26/2024  01:30:00 PM  N-31 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Michael D Washington

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Auto Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00051394-CU-PA-NC JENNINGS VS. L&A QUALITY INSTALLS [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 02/13/2024

The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatory 39 brought by plaintiff Stephanie Jennings as heir and successor in interest of decedent Carson Jennings (hereinafter, Plaintiff) is GRANTED. The Request for Monetary Sanctions brought by Plaintiff with respect to this motion is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $962.50.

The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production brought by Plaintiff is DISCHARGED as moot. The Request for Monetary Sanctions brought by Plaintiff with respect to this motion is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $962.50.

The facts of this case involve an auto accident that led to the death of a motorcyclist. The motorcyclist was decedent Carson Jennings. According to the allegations, Mr. Jennings was hit on his motorcycle by a 'box truck' being driving by defendant Eric Llamas-Rodriguez (the Driver). It is alleged that, when the accident occurred, the Driver was on the clock – i.e. working in the course and scope of his employment with defendant L & A Quality Installs LLC (the Employer or the Insured). The Employer appears to have been insured by defendant-in-intervention Infinity Insurance Company (the Insurance Company). The Insurance Company represents the Driver in this action, but the discovery at issue was propounded on the Insurance Company itself.

With respect to the Special Interrogatory, the moving party takes issue with the responding party's statement that it 'lacks sufficient knowledge and information to provide a complete and straightforward response...' because the statement does not indicate a reasonable or good faith effort to obtain the requested information or describe the efforts made to obtain the information. The moving party's argument is half-correct. The responding party has an obligation to provide information that is reasonably within its custody or control, but does not have to spell-out the specific steps it took to obtain said information. On the other hand, the responding party does need to state that it made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain information responsive to the interrogatory, which it does not appear to have done. As such, the motion is granted as to this interrogatory, but only in a limited way so that the responding party can indicate, under oath, that it has made reasonable and good faith efforts to respond to the inquiry – it does not have outline the specific steps it took.

The Court briefly notes an argument by the moving party that the Insurance Company represents the Driver and thus has ready access to the Driver and should provide information that the Insurance Company can obtain from the Driver. This is not correct. If the moving party wants responses from the Driver it will need to propound discovery on the Driver.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3091488 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  JENNINGS VS. L&A QUALITY INSTALLS [IMAGED]  37-2022-00051394-CU-PA-NC With respect to the Requests for Production, the responding party indicates that it has provided supplemental responses – essentially on the eve of the day the opposition brief was due. The moving party concedes that said supplemental responses are adequate. However, based on this, the responding party seeks to avoid the imposition of monetary sanctions. This is not a particularly persuasive argument. The discovery procedure is designed to be self-executing, and monetary sanctions exist as a remedial measure to compensate the party who has to resort to motion practice when documents should have been forthcoming. As such, producing documents after a motion is filed is not a persuasive basis for avoiding sanctions. To the extent that the Insurance Company cites St. Mary v. Super. Ct. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 776 for the proposition that production prior to the hearing denies a trial court the discretion to award monetary sanctions, its reliance is misplaced. The cited language in the St. Mary case pertains to requests for admission, which are somewhat different from the production of records at issue here. Admissions are different because one of the sanctions available is not monetary, but rather deeming the admissions admitted, which can have a serious impact on the ability to litigate the underlying merit of the case – i.e. it can curtail a trial on the merits or substance.

(Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.280(c).) Imposing monetary sanctions for the fact that the moving party had to spend attorney time and pay filing fees does not impact the responding party's ability to litigate on the merits. Accordingly, an award of monetary sanctions remains appropriate.

However, the moving party's request for monetary sanctions overreaches. First, the moving party seeks compensation for making meet and confer efforts. Except in rare circumstances, meet and confer efforts are not compensable. If they were, then any time parties engaged in meet and confer and were subsequently able to obtain additional discovery as a result, monetary sanctions would be warranted – i.e. it would encourage the filing of more motion practice, when the discovery process is designed to be self-executing. Second, the Court notes a bit of skepticism when it comes to the evidentiary support for the attorney fees incurred. Specifically, the attorney fees incurred for both motions come to the exact same amount. The motions themselves are different and required slightly different arguments. As such, the Court finds it highly unlikely that the attorney fees associated with drafting each of the motions would have come to the exact same amount of time. Moreover, there is an element of overlap in this regard.

For example, both motions estimate that counsel will spent one hour attending the hearing on the instant motion – but is that one hour total for both motion, or one hour for each motion? As parsed in the briefing, it appears to be one hour for each motion. While it is somewhat understandable that the attorney fee request needed to be made this way because counsel cannot necessarily predict the future (for example, one motion has largely resolved because supplemental production has been made while the other remains in dispute and counsel has no way of knowing which matters will play out in which ways when initially filing the moving papers), with remote appearance capabilities, the estimation of two hours to attend this relatively simple hearing is too high, and, if interpreted as one hour for each motion, it results in a sort of overlap in billing.

Accordingly, the Court will subtract the meet and confer time (1.5 hours at $350.00 per hour multiplied by 2 motions). However, as to the fact that there are two motions that show as having incurred the exact same amount of time to draft, reply to, and argue, and to the extent that it looks like those billings overlap, the Court will further divide the estimated time in half to account for the apparent overlap, thereby leaving a result of $962.50 per motion or combined total of $1,925.00 for both motions.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2030.300 and 2031.310, defendant-in-intervention Infinity Insurance Company is ORDERED to serve verified supplemental responses to Special Interrogatory 39 on Plaintiff and sent payment for monetary sanctions by Friday, May 10, 2024. Said responses are to be served electronically on Attorneys P. Christopher Ardalan, Geoffrey Hinkey, and Jacqueline Weintraub of Ardalan & Associates, a Professional Law Corporation, and said monetary sanctions are to be sent to Attorneys P. Christopher Ardalan, Geoffrey Hinkey, and Jacqueline Weintraub of Ardalan & Associates, a Professional Law Corporation at 3225 Old Conejo Road, Newbury Park, CA 91320.

Unless the ruling(s) above indicate that an appearance is necessary, parties who wish to submit, who are satisfied with the above tentative ruling(s), and/or who do not otherwise wish to argue the motion(s) are encouraged to give notice to the Court and each other of their intention not to Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3091488 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  JENNINGS VS. L&A QUALITY INSTALLS [IMAGED]  37-2022-00051394-CU-PA-NC appear.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3091488