Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 21TRCV00429, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 21TRCV00429, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21TRCV00429 Hearing Date: May 11, 2023 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: May 11, 2023¿

CASE NUMBER: 21TRCV00429

CASE NAME: State Farm General Insurance Company v. Noritz America Corporation, et al. .

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, PWC Enterprises, Inc. dba Southeastern Filtration & Equipment System

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, State Farm General Insurance Company

TRIAL DATE:

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion for Order to Compel Plaintiff to Provide Further Responses to Request for Admission, Set One.

Tentative Rulings: (1) Motion for an Order to Compel Plaintiff to Provide Further Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One is mostly DENIED but partly GRANTED. Monetary sanctions are denied

I. BACKGROUND¿

A. Factual¿

On September 30, 2022, Defendant PWC Enterprises Inc. dba Southeastern Filtration & Equipment Systems (“PWC”) notes that it served Plaintiff Requests for Admission, Set One. PWC notes the responses were due on November 1, 2022. However, PWC notes that on November 1, 2022, Plaintiff served unverified responses. To date, PWC notes that verified responses have not been received.

B. Procedural

On December 22, 2022, PWC filed a motion to compel further responses to Requests for Admission, Set One. The parties then conducted an Informal Discovery Conference with the Court to address the matters at issue regarding objections to the RFAs and the completeness of the responses. The Court essentially facilitated a more extensive meet-and-confer process than had been accomplished before, and the Court proposed some alternative ways the discovery dispute could be resolved. On April 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On May 5, 2023, PWC filed a reply brief.

¿II. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290, subdivision (a), provides that “[o]n receipt of a particular response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete[;] (2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.” Notice of the motion must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise the propounding party waives the right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (c).) The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (b).)

B. Discussion

Here, PWC asserts that for Requests for Admission Nos. 2-16, 18, 20, 24-31, Plaintiff responded with “boilerplate” responses. PWC argues that such boilerplate responses should be stricken as non-responsive. But CCP § 2033.290(a) has only two grounds on which a motion to compel further responses to RFAs can be made, i.e., that an answer is evasive or incomplete, or that an objection is without merit or is too general. Accordingly, the Court will assess the Motion to Compel using the statutory grounds for this type of discovery motion, not grounds for objecting to a question at a deposition or grounds for a motion to compel interrogatories or document demands. Thus the Court will not be “striking” a response.

PWC asserts that the RFAs seek information that would inform it of Plaintiff’s claims and allegations of the case, including theories of recovery and damages, the facts of the case, the evidence including information regarding injuries and medical information as to injuries and the impact of the injuries upon Plaintiff’s claims in this matter. That assertion is what a defendant in a civil lawsuit is generally entitled to obtain from the plaintiff if properly asked.

In opposition to this Motion, Plaintiff notes that there are no definitions set forth by PWC in the requests. For example, Plaintiff notes that the term “tankless water heater system” is used repeatedly in the Requests at Nos. 1-15, 19023, 25-27, and 29-30. But the objections within the responses to the RFAs themselves do not object to the lack of definition of the term “tankless water heater system.” In fact, State Farm’s responses to the RFAs use that exact four-word term. The response to RFA #2 objects to the terms “design” and “incident.” The Court overrules those objections. While better practice would have been to use a specially defined term, RFA #1 essentially did so by defining “incident” as “the water loss incident that occurred on July 7, 2020 at your insureds Walter and Joy Welsh residence located at 5903 Clint Place, Rancho Palos Verdes. State Farm did not object to the use of the term “incident” when it uncategorically admitted RFA #1.

As to RFA#2, the Court denies the Motion. State Farm stated that it did not know who designed the sediment filter but admitted that it was informed and believed that PWC supplied it, but lacks sufficient information to admit or deny whether PWC or some other entity did the design work on the sediment filter. As to RFA#3, the Court overrules the objections to the words “assemble” and “install,” but again denies the motion to compel a further response. State Farm admitted that PWC “supplied” the sediment filter but stated it lacked information or belief sufficient to admit whether it was PWC or some other party who connected the sediment filter to the water inlet or any other component of the tankless water heater system. As to RFA#4, the Court overrules the objections to the words “assemble” and “install,” but again denies the motion to compel a further response. State Farm admitted that PWC “supplied” the sediment filter but stated it lacked information or belief sufficient to admit whether it was PWC or some other party who installed the tankless water system at the insureds’ home. At the IDC, the parties discussed whether it was G.E. Plumbing or some other trade who installed the water heater system in the Welsh residence, but as the Court recalls State Farm did not believe that PWC employees actually went to the Welsh home. Perhaps a voluntary further response, now that State Farm may be better educated as to the facts, would be appropriate. RFA#5 directly asks State Farm to admit that it was in fact G.E. Plumbing who did the installation of the system at the insureds’ home. The Court overrules the objection to the word “install,” but again denies the motion to compel a further response. State Farm admitted that PWC “supplied” the sediment filter but stated it lacked information or belief sufficient to admit whether it was G.E. Plumbing who installed the tankless water system at the insureds’ home. Perhaps a voluntary further response, now that State Farm may be better educated as to the facts, would be appropriate.

RFA #6 inquires as to post-installation maintenance of the tankless water heating system. The objection as to the word “maintaining” is sustained. However, State Farm’s response subject to the objection appears to the Court to be evasive and incomplete. State Farm could have, and should have, further admitted that it lacks any information as of the date of its responses that a component supplier like PWC had any duties of ongoing maintenance of any of the components that PWC may have supplied for use in the tankless water hearting system after it was installed and operational in the Welsh home. Such an answer would be consistent with the intent and thrust of the RFA. The Court will thus GRANT the motion and order a further response to RFA #6. As to RFA #7, the Court overrules the objection to the word “incident” which was essentially defined in RFA#1 as “the water loss incident that occurred on July 7, 2020 at your insureds Walter and Joy Welsh residence located at 5903 Clint Place, Rancho Palos Verdes. But the Court denies the motion to compel a further response because State Farm’s verified answer states that as of the date of its responses, State Farm lacked information or belief sufficient to admit whether PWC or some other party who was responsible for training the Welsh family on how to operate or use the tankless water heating system. The Court denies the motion as to RFA #8 for the same reason.

The Court believes it has provided the parties with sufficient information as to the first group of RFAs for State Farm and PWC to guide where they go from here on the discovery requests. If there are specific individual requests (as to which neither party provided the Court with a Separate Statement), the Court will address up to 3 additional RFAs at the hearing or will consider a further ISDC with counsel to discuss specific individual RFAs.

C. Sanctions

PWC has requested monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $524. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that sanctions should not be awarded because it provided verified responses to Requests for Admission, November 7, 2022. In light of the Court’s rulings as discussed above, State Farm had substantial justification for its refusal to simply admit or deny most of the RFAs at the outset of the litigation that asked it to confirm facts that State Farm needed further investigation or formal discovery to ascertain. Monetary sanctions are denied.