Judge Sarah J. Heidel, Case Number: 23GDCV01641, Date: 2024-02-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Sarah J. Heidel, Case: 23GDCV01641, Date: 2024-02-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23GDCV01641 Hearing Date: April 12, 2024 Dept: V

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICTDEPARTMENT VPROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,

vs. ELVA SALDANA, et al., Defendants.

Case No.: 23GDCV01641

Hearing Date: April 12, 2024

Time: 9:00 a.m. [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: (1) DEFENDANT ELVA SALDANA’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPOSNES FROM PLAINTIFF TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; AND (2) DEFENDANT ELVA SALDANA’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PLAINTIFF TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET ONE AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTIES: Defendant Elva Saldana
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Progressive Select Insurance Company

Motions to Compel Further

The court considered the moving papers and opposition papers filed in connection with this motion. Defendant did not file replies.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Progressive Select Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action against Defendant Elva Saldana (“Defendant”) and Does 1-50, asserting the following causes of action: (1) declaratory relief; and (2) specific performance.

As alleged in the complaint, Plaintiff’s insured, Nan Ying Li, was involved in a motor vehicle accident with Defendant on February 8, 2022. (Compl. ¶ 8.) On November 4, 2022, Defendant made a written statement demand to Plaintiff for her bodily injury claims in exchange for the policy limits for Plaintiff’s insured as well as a release for the insured. (Compl. ¶ 9.) The demand letter allegedly referenced Plaintiff’s insured by name at least five times. Defendant claimed to have medical bills in the amount of $18,47 and demanded acceptance in writing by November 14, 2022. (Ibid.) By November 11, 2022, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant’s attorney accepting the demand issued in the November 4, 2022 letter. (Id. at ¶ 10.) Based on this acceptance, Plaintiff claims that a valid and enforceable settlement agreement existed regarding Defendant’s personal injury claims against Plaintiff’s insured. (Id. at ¶ 11.) On November 14, 2022, Plaintiff emailed Defendant’s attorney with the documents that had been previously sent on November 11, 2022, along with a requested return of the executed release. (Id. at ¶ 12.) Defendant is alleged to have refused to acknowledge the existence of a settlement agreement between the parties and then made a second demand on December 30, 2022 in the amount of $3,250,000 based on medical bills that by then amounted to $233,040. (Id. at ¶ 13.) In response, Plaintiff reminded counsel that the prior November 4, 2022 demand letter had been accepted. (Ibid.)

On November 9, 2023, Defendant filed the instant motions to compel further as it pertains to her Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One. Plaintiff opposes.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220 requires that each answer to an interrogatory must be as “complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220.) Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300(a) permits a propounding party to move for an order compelling a further response to an interrogatory if the propounding party deems that an answer is “evasive or incomplete” or that an objection is “without merit or too general.”

In responding to a demand for production of documents, a party must provide one of the following: (1) a legally adequate statement of compliance; (2) a statement of inability to comply; or (3) an objection to the particular demand. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210(a); § 2031.220 [requirements for partial compliance with production demand]; § 2031.230 [statement of inability to comply must include reason why].) If any objections are made, they must: (1) “[i]dentify with particularity any document … falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made”; and (2) “[s]et forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection.” (Id., § 2031.240(b).)

DISCUSSION

A. Meet and Confer

As a preliminary matter, before bringing a motion to compel further responses to any discovery request, the moving party must make efforts to meet and confer in good faith and submit a declaration attesting to those efforts. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.310(b)(2), 2030.300(b).)

On August 23, 2023, Defendant’s counsel Plaintiff’s counsel with Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. (Kashani Decls. ¶¶ 2-3, Exhs. A.) Plaintiff responded on September 25, 2023. On November 2, 2023 Defendant sent a met and confer letter to Plaintiff, requesting a response by November 8, 2023. (Id. at ¶¶ 4-6, Exhs. B-C.) Plaintiff responded November 8, 2023. Defendant never acknowledged the response and filed the instant motions the next day. (Oppositions at pp. 5-6; Sinclair Decls. ¶ 5.)

Under these circumstances, the court finds Plaintiff’s meet and confer declaration does not “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.) While the evidence shows that Defendant served a meet and confer letter on Plaintiff’s counsel, there was no “a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution,” in which counsel “attempt[ed] to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.” (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294.)

The court denies Defendants’ motions to compel further for failure to comply with the applicable meet and confer requirement. The request for sanctions is also denied.