Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 19STCV38659, Date: 2022-08-12 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 19STCV38659    Hearing Date: August 12, 2022    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff David Ward

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant California Physicians’ Service dba Blue Shield of California

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to Request for Production Nos. 28-30 and Special Interrogatory No. 92.

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff David Ward (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant California Physicians’ Service, dba Blue Shield of California (“Defendant”) on October 25, 2019.  On February 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint against Defendant, asserting two causes of action for (1) breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing and (2) violation of Civil Code section 3428.

Plaintiff now moves the court for an order compelling Defendant to provide further responses to (1) Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Three, numbers 28 through 30, and (2) Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Three, number 92.

As a threshold matter, the court notes that Defendant takes issue with Plaintiff’s meet and confer declaration.  Such a declaration “shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)  The declaration submitted by Plaintiff’s counsel indicates that the meet and confer process as to the challenged responses did not occur until June 6, 2021—one day before Plaintiff filed the pending motion.  (Getzels Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. C.)  The court notes that, on March 26, 2021, following service of the subject discovery, Plaintiff sent a letter to defense counsel “explaining what [counsel] wanted Defendant to produce in response to” Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Three, and Request for Production of Documents, Set Three.  (Getzels Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.)  However, Defendant did not serve its responses until April 23, 2021.  (Getzels Decl., ¶ 3.)  Thus, Plaintiff’s counsel could not have attempted to informally resolve “each issue presented by the motion” until after Defendant served its allegedly insufficient responses.  Plaintiff did not begin the meet and confer process until June 6, 2021.  (Getzels Decl., ¶ 7.)

The court recognizes Defendant’s concern regarding the meet and confer process, given that Plaintiff did not begin to meet and confer with Defendant until one day before Plaintiff filed the instant motion.  However, upon a review of the emails exchanged between counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant, the court finds that the parties did attempt to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion.  Defendant’s counsel responded to Plaintiff’s counsel three times on June 7, 2021, stating that Defendant produced documents responsive to Plaintiff’s Request for Production numbers 28 through 30.  (Getzels Decl., Exs. D, F, H.)  Counsel for Plaintiff responded to those emails, stating that Defendant should have produced, but did not produce, certain forms, and ultimately concluded that a motion to compel was necessary.  (Getzels Decl., Exs. E, G, I.)  The court finds that the meet and confer declaration is sufficient because it establishes that counsel attempted to informally resolve the issues presented in this motion, and therefore rules on Plaintiff’s motion on the merits as follows.

The court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further response to Special Interrogatory number 92 as moot because Defendant has produced evidence establishing that (1) a supplemental response was served as to Special Interrogatory number 92 on July 19, 2021 and (2) Plaintiff’s counsel confirmed that interrogatory number 92 is no longer at issue.  (Mejlumyan Decl., ¶¶ 7, 14; Mejlumyan Decl., Exs. 2, 4.) 

The court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Request for Production numbers 28 through 30 because Defendant’s statements of compliance as to these requests in its written response are incomplete.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)(1).)  A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection will comply with the demand shall state that the production demanded will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.)  Defendant’s responses to these requests for production do not include a statement that the production demanded will be allowed, and that all documents that are in Defendant’s possession, custody, and control will be or have been included in the production as required.

ORDER

The court denies plaintiff David Ward’s motion to compel further discovery responses as to Special Interrogatory number 92.

The court grants plaintiff David Ward’s motion to compel further discovery responses as to Request for Production numbers 28, 29, and 30.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)(1).)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, the court orders defendant California Physicians’ Service, dba Blue Shield of California (1) to serve on plaintiff David Ward further written responses to plaintiff David Ward’s Request for Production, Set Three, numbers 28, 29, and 30 that comply with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.210-2031.250, and (2) to produce to plaintiff David Ward all documents and things in defendant California Physicians’ Service, dba Blue Shield of California’s possession, custody, or control which are responsive to those requests, within 20 days of the date of this order.

The court orders plaintiff David Ward to give notice of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  August 12, 2022

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court