Judge Robert B. Broadbelt, Case Number: 22STCV09349, Date: 2024-12-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV09349, Date: 2024-12-11 Tentative Ruling

MOVING PARTIES: Defendants Farmers Group, Inc., Farmers Insurance Exchange, Truck Insurance Exchange, Fire Insurance Exchange, Mid-Century Insurance Company, and Farmers New World Life Insurance Company

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

The court denies defendants Farmers Group, Inc., Farmers Insurance Exchange, Truck Insurance Exchange, Fire Insurance Exchange, Mid-Century Insurance Company, and Farmers New World Life Insurance Company’s request for judicial notice because rulings from other Superior Court departments are neither binding on this court nor can be considered as persuasive authority and are therefore irrelevant. (Harrott v. County of Kings (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1138, 1148 [“Trial court decisions are not precedents binding on other courts under the principle of stare decisis”]; Sargent Fletcher, Inc. v. Able Corp. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1658, 1668 [“‘[a] written trial court ruling has no precedential value’”].)

Defendants Farmers Group, Inc., Farmers Insurance Exchange, Truck Insurance Exchange, Fire Insurance Exchange, Mid-Century Insurance Company, and Farmers New World Life Insurance Company (“Defendants”) move the court for an order (1) issuing a protective order (i) relieving Defendants and any witness served with a deposition notice by plaintiff Lynn Klecka (“Plaintiff”) from responding to, objecting to, or producing documents to those requests, (ii) permitting Plaintiff to identify 100 document requests or other number the court determines is reasonable to which Defendants will respond within 30 days, and (iii) requiring Plaintiff to obtain leave of court before propounding any other document requests on Defendants or affiliated witness, and (2) awarding monetary sanctions in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff in the amount of $3,000.

First, as a threshold matter, the court notes that Plaintiff has taken issue with the meet and confer process in her opposition. The court finds that Defendants have submitted a declaration that satisfies the meet and confer requirement because (1) counsel for Defendants sent a letter to Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the Requests for Production of Documents on August 16, 2024, in which, inter alia, Defendants (i) asserted that the discovery propounded was unduly burdensome and expensive, and (ii) stated that, if counsel for Plaintiff wished to meet and confer, counsel could contact Defendants’ counsel, which shows that Defendants contacted Plaintiff to make a good faith attempt to resolve the issues with this discovery, and (2) counsel for Defendants thereafter followed up with Plaintiff’s remaining attorney to meet and confer, but Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond. (Palmer Decl., ¶ 2 and Ex. A; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040 [meet and confer requirements], 2017.020, subd. (a), 2019.030, subd. (b).)

Second, for the reasons set forth below, the court finds that (1) the discovery served on Defendants by Plaintiff (i.e., the Requests for Production of Documents and Notices of Deposition) is unduly burdensome taking into account the needs of this case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of issues at stake in the litigation, and (2) the burden of the discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2019.030, subd. (a)(2), 2017.020, subd. (a).)

Plaintiff served her first set of Requests for Production of Documents on each of the six moving defendants, each of which contained 70 requests for production, therefore amounting to a total of 420 requests. (Palmer Decl., ¶ 3 and Ex. B.) Plaintiff’s second set of Requests for Production of Documents, served on defendants Farmers Insurance Exchange, Fire Insurance Exchange, Truck Insurance Exchange, Mid-Century Insurance Company, and Farmers New World Life Insurance Company, contained an additional 173 requests. (Palmer Decl., ¶ 4 and Ex. C.) The second set of Requests for Production of Documents served on defendant Farmers Group, Inc. contained an additional 196 requests. (Palmer Decl., ¶ 5 and Ex. D.)

Thereafter, Plaintiff served her third set of Requests for Production of Documents on defendant Farmers New World Life Insurance Company, which contained an additional 12 requests. (Palmer Decl., ¶ 6 and Ex. E.) The third set of Requests for Production of Documents served on defendant Farmers Group, Inc. contained an additional 54 requests. (Palmer Decl., ¶ 7 and Ex. F.) Plaintiff also served on defendant Farmers Group, Inc. her fourth set of Requests for Production of Documents, which contained 72 more requests. (Palmer Decl., ¶ 8 and Ex. G.)

Thus, Plaintiff has served (1) defendant Farmers Group, Inc. with a total of 392 Requests for Production of Documents, (2) defendants Farmers Insurance Exchange, Fire Insurance Exchange, Truck Insurance Exchange, and Mid-Century Insurance Company with a total of 244 Requests for Production of Documents each, and (3) defendant Farmers New World Life Insurance Company with a total of 255 Requests for Production of Documents. (Palmer Decl., ¶¶ 3-8.)

Plaintiff has also served a number of document requests in connection with various notices of deposition. For example, Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition to defendant Farmers Group, Inc.’s person most qualified contains 285 document requests. (Palmer Decl., ¶ 10 and Ex. H.) Plaintiff’s Amended Notice of Deposition to deponent Bill Matlock contains 70 document requests. (Palmer Decl., ¶ 13 and Ex. K.) Plaintiff’s Amended Notice of Deposition to deponent Zoltan Nagy contains 78 document requests. (Palmer Decl., ¶ 16 and Ex. N.)

The court finds that the discovery described above is unduly burdensome on Defendants and their affiliated witnesses and that the burden of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The court further finds that Plaintiff has not shown, in her opposition, that this discovery is not unduly burdensome, or has otherwise justified the amount of discovery served on Defendants and their affiliated witnesses. The court therefore grants Defendants’ motion for a protective order. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2019.030, subd. (a), 2017.020, subd. (a).)

The court will issue a protective order that (1) Defendants are not required to respond to any Requests for Production of Documents served on them by Plaintiff, (2) defendant Farmers Group, Inc. is not required to produce any documents in response to Plaintiff’s Notices of Deposition of its Person Most Qualified, and (3) Defendants and their affiliated witnesses shall not be required to produce documents responsive to Plaintiff’s Notices of Deposition of those witnesses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2019.030, subd. (a), 2017.020, subd. (a).)

The court will further order that Plaintiff shall be permitted (1) to serve on Defendants revised sets of Requests for Production of Documents on Defendants with a reasonable number of requests, not to exceed 50 requests per defendant, and (2) to serve revised Notices of Deposition on Defendants and their affiliated witnesses with a reasonable number of document demands, not to exceed 35 requests per deponent.

The court grants Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2019.030, subd. (c), 2017.020, subd. (b).) The court finds that $3,000 (7.6 hours x $395 per hour) is a reasonable amount of sanctions to impose against Plaintiff in connection with this motion. (Palmer Decl., ¶ 24.)

Defendants move the court for an order compelling Plaintiff to submit to a mental examination to be conducted by Teri M. Pokrajac, Psy.D.

“Any party may obtain discovery, subject to the restrictions set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2019.010), by means of a physical or mental examination of . . . a party to the action . . . in any action in which the mental or physical condition (including the blood group) of that party or other person is in controversy in the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.020, subd. (a).) If any party desires to obtain discovery by a mental examination, the party must obtain leave of court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.310, subd. (a).) “To protect the plaintiff’s privacy interests from unnecessary intrusion, the mental examination may be ordered only upon a showing of good cause.” (Carpenter v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 249, 259; Code Civ. Proc., §¿2032.320, subd. (a) [“The court shall grant a motion for physical or mental examination under Section 2032.310 only for good cause shown”].)

First, the court finds that Defendants have submitted a declaration that satisfies the meet and confer requirement. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2032.310, subd. (b), 2016.040; Palmer Decl., ¶¶ 4-5 and Exs. D-E.)

Second, the court finds that Defendants have sufficiently specified the manner, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination, as well as the identity of the person who will perform the examination (i.e., Dr. Pokrajac). (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.310, subd. (b); Palmer Decl., ¶ 1; Mot., p. 5:8-22; Dr. Pokrajac Decl., ¶¶ 3 [scope of exam shall be limited to Plaintiff’s claims for non-economic damages], 4 [Dr. Pokrajac will (i) conduct oral examination which will include Plaintiff’s full past history, demographic details, current complaints for which she might seek care, the history of her illness including her subjective experience, (ii) make inquiries necessary for a full mental status evaluation of Plaintiff’s moods, thought processes and thought content, and (iii) select and administer the following written or computer administered tests: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2, Trauma Symptom Inventory, Million Clinical Multiaxial Inventory, Personality Assessment Inventory, Dissociative Experience Scale-II, Clinician Administered PTSD Scale 5, Rorschach, and Mini-Mental State Exam 2].)

Third, the court finds that Defendants have shown good cause to compel Plaintiff’s attendance at a mental examination because Plaintiff has stated, in her discovery responses, that she “attributes injuries to her mental, emotional, and physical wellbeing as a result of Defendants[’] termination[,]” and that her “overall wellbeing decreased as a result of Defendant’s termination, and [she] experiences loss of sleep, depression, anxiety, loss of her career, self-esteem, humiliation, sadness, low energy, loss of appetite, and continuous crying.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.320, subd. (a); Palmer Decl., Ex. C, Pl. Responses to Def. Form Interrogatories, pp. 11:24-28, 12:16-22; Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 839-840 [concluding that the plaintiff’s mental state was in controversy since plaintiff alleging that defendants caused her various mental and emotional ailments].)

Fourth, the court finds that Defendants have not met their burden to show good cause to require Plaintiff to travel 89 miles to attend the mental examination and therefore orders that the mental examination shall be conducted remotely, at the election of Defendants. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.320, subd. (e)(1) [“If the place of examination is more than 75 miles from the residence of the person to be examined, an order to submit to it shall be entered only if both the following conditions are satisfied: [¶] (1) The court determines that there is good cause for the travel involved”]; Reply, p. 4:20-21 [requesting, in the alternative, that the examination be conducted remotely].)

Finally, the court notes that Plaintiff has requested an order that she be permitted to record the examination. (Opp., p. 3:4-6.) Because Plaintiff is already authorized to record the examination by audio technology, the court finds that Plaintiff has not shown that such a court order is necessary. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.530, subd. (a) [“The examiner and the examinee shall have the right to record a mental examination by audio technology”].)

The court grants Plaintiff’s request that (1) the examination be limited to 7 hours with a break for lunch that is at least 1/3 of an hour, and (2) Plaintiff be permitted to take breaks as reasonably required. (Opp., p. 3:4-6; Reply, p. 5:6-7 and Palmer Reply Decl., ¶ 2 [stating that Defendants do not object to these requests].) The court also grants Plaintiff’s request that the medial records and reports will be subject to the Stipulated Protective Order entered into by the parties in this action.[1] (Opp., p. 3:6-7; Reply, p. 5:7-9 and Palmer Reply Decl., ¶ 3 [Defendants do not object to this request].)

The court grants defendants Farmers Group, Inc., Farmers Insurance Exchange, Truck Insurance Exchange, Fire Insurance Exchange, Mid-Century Insurance Company, and Farmers New World Life Insurance Company’s motion for a protective order as follows.

Defendants Farmers Group, Inc., Farmers Insurance Exchange, Truck Insurance Exchange, Fire Insurance Exchange, Mid-Century Insurance Company, and Farmers New World Life Insurance Company are not required to serve responses or produce documents responsive to any Requests for Production of Documents that plaintiff Lynn Klecka has served on them as of December 11, 2024.

The court orders that plaintiff Lynn Klecka may serve on defendants Farmers Group, Inc., Farmers Insurance Exchange, Truck Insurance Exchange, Fire Insurance Exchange, Mid-Century Insurance Company, and Farmers New World Life Insurance Company a reasonable number of Requests for Production of Documents pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010 et seq., not to exceed 50 requests per defendant.

The court orders that defendant Farmers Group, Inc. shall not be required to respond to, object to, or produce documents responsive to (1) “Plaintiff Lynn Klecka’s Amended Notice of Videotaped Deposition of Person Most Qualified at Farmers Group, Inc. and Request for Production of Documents,” served on it by plaintiff Lynn Klecka on July 16, 2024, as attached to the declaration of Eric J. Palmer filed on September 11, 2024 as Exhibit H, and (2) “Plaintiff Lynn Klecka’s Notice of Videotaped Deposition of Person Most Qualified at Farmers Group, Inc. and Request for Production of Documents,” served on it by plaintiff Lynn Klecka on July 3, 2024, as attached to the declaration of Eric J. Palmer filed on September 11, 2024 as Exhibit J. The court orders that plaintiff Lynn Klecka may serve amended Notices of Deposition on defendant Farmers Group, Inc.’s person most qualified that include no more than 35 requests for production of documents as to each deponent.

The court orders that deponents Chris Prester, Bill Matlock, Kirk Parker, Michael Lin, and Zoltan M. Nagy shall not be required to respond to, object to, or produce documents responsive to, the Notices of Deposition served on them by plaintiff Lynn Klecka, as attached to the declaration of Eric J. Palmer filed on September 11, 2024 as Exhibits I, K, L, M, and N. The court orders that plaintiff Lynn Klecka may serve amended Notices of Deposition on those deponents that include no more than 35 requests for production of documents as to each deponent.

The court orders plaintiff Lynn Klecka to pay monetary sanctions to defendants Farmers Group, Inc., Farmers Insurance Exchange, Truck Insurance Exchange, Fire Insurance Exchange, Mid-Century Insurance Company, and Farmers New World Life Insurance Company in the amount of $3,000 within 30 days of the date of service of this order.

The court orders that Teri M. Pokrajac, Psy.D. shall conduct the mental examination of plaintiff Lynn Klecka on January 30, 2025, to be conducted on a videoconferencing platform to be selected by Teri M. Pokrajac, Psy.D., and to begin at 10:00 a.m. and to last no more than 7 hours, excluding a lunch break of not less than 1/3 of an hour and other reasonable breaks.

At the mental examination, Teri M. Pokrajac, Psy.D. may (1) examine plaintiff Lynn Klecka regarding (i) her past history, (ii) her demographic details, (iii) her current complaints for which she might seek care, and (iv) the history of her illness including her subjective experience of the events leading to psychological damages, (2) make inquiries necessary for a full mental status evaluation of plaintiff Lynn Klecka’s moods, thought processes, and thought content, and (3) may administer the following written or computer administered tests: (i) Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2, (ii) Trauma Symptom Inventory, (iii) Million Clinical Multiaxial Inventory, (iv) Personality Assessment Inventory, (v) Dissociative Experience Scale-II, (v) Clinician Administered PTSD Scale 5, (vi) Rorschach, and (vii) Mini-Mental State Exam 2.

The court orders that plaintiff Lynn Klecka’s medical records and the reports of the examiner will be subject to the Stipulated Protective Order entered into by the parties in this action.

The court orders defendants Farmers Group, Inc., Farmers Insurance Exchange, Truck Insurance Exchange, Fire Insurance Exchange, Mid-Century Insurance Company, and Farmers New World Life Insurance Company to give notice of this ruling.

[1] The court notes that, while both parties have referenced a Stipulated Protective Order, the parties do not appear to have filed such a protective order with the court.

lynn klecka ; Plaintiff, vs. farmers group, inc. , et al.; Defendants.	Case No.:	22STCV09349

	Hearing Date:	December 11, 2024

	Time:	10:00 a.m.

	[tentative] Order RE: (1) defendants’ motion for a protective order and for sanctions (2) defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff’s attendance at mental examination