Judge: Stephanie M. Bowick, Case: 21STCV33605, Date: 2025-02-24 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 19 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
If you desire to submit on a tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 19 before 08:00 a.m. on the day of the motion hearing. The e-mail address for submitting is SMCDept19@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail must contain the case name and number, and that you submit. For example, "Smith v. Jones BC551124, submit". The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent.

PLEASE NOTE, The above e-mail address is only to inform the Court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries or correspondence will not receive a response.

Case Number: 21STCV33605 Hearing Date: February 24, 2025 Dept: 19

Dept. 19

Hon. Rolf Treu, Judge presiding

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE COMPANY v. JACQUELYN ALLEN (21STCV33605)

Counsel for Plaintiff/moving party: Robert Kubler (Walsworth LLP)

Counsel for Defendants/ opposing party: N/A (motions are unopposed)

(1) PLAINTIFF/CROSS-DEFENDANT’s MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES to REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET TWO (filed on 09/24/24)

(2) PLAINTIFF/CROSS-DEFENDANT’s MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE (filed on 10/08/2024)

(3) PLAINTIFF/CROSS-DEFENDANT’s MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SETS ONE AND TWO) (filed on 10/08/2024)

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s unopposed Motion to Compel Further Responses To Requests For Production, Set Two is GRANTED.

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s unopposed Motion to Compel Further Responses To Form Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED.

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s unopposed Motion to Compel Further Responses To Special Interrogatories, Sets One and Two is GRANTED as to Special Interrogatories Sets One and Two, Nos. 3, 7, 9-10, 12, 25-26, 30, 31-32, 34-35, 38, 41, 44, 46-47, 49-50, 52-53, 55-56, 58, 62-64, 66-67, 69-72, 74-78.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant is ordered to serve verified responses, without objections, within 30 days.

A privilege log must be provided to Plaintiff for any documents withheld under a claim of privilege.

Counsel for Plaintiff to give notice.

I. BACKGROUND

This action arises out of alleged breach of contract. Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) brings suit against Defendant Jacquelyn Allen (“Defendant”) alleging the following cause of action:

1. Declaratory Relief.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant misrepresented and concealed material facts concerning an automobile collision occurring on or about June 4, 2019 and therefore seeks a declaration that “no rights, duties or obligations arose, exist, or may in the future arise or exist” under the insurance policy number 545 9303-A19-75A (the “Policy”) whereby Plaintiff agreed to insure Defendant because, by making the misrepresentations and concealing the material facts, Defendant alleges Plaintiff breached the terms of the insurance policy.

In the Second Amended Cross-Complaint (“SACC”) Defendant Jacquelyn Allen alleges the following causes of action against Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company:

1. Breach of Contract;

2. Tortious Breach of The Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing;

3. Violation of Business & Professions Code Section 17200, Et Seq.; and

4. Declaratory Relief.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant alleges that Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant breached the Policy by refusing to pay benefits under the Policy as obligated.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two

Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendant to provide further responses to Requests for Production Set Two, served on April 25, 2024, Numbers 32-49 on the grounds that Defendant’s objections are without merit and should be overruled. Additionally, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s responses to Numbers 34 and 47 violate the Discovery Act.

Defendant failed to file an opposition, effectively consenting to the Court granting the relief requested. See Cal. R. Ct., 8.54(c) [“A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion.”]; Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

1. Legal Standards

Under CCP § 2017.010, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action..., if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” The Section specifically provides that “[d]iscovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action,” and that discovery “may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.”

CCP § 2031.310(a) provides that a party demanding a document inspection may move for an order compelling further responses to the demand if the demanding party deems that:

“(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.

(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.”

Under CCP § 2031.310 (b)(1), “The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.”

“In the more specific context of a demand for production of a tangible thing, the party who asks the trial court to compel production must show “good cause” for the request—but unless there is a legitimate privilege issue or claim of attorney work product, that burden is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Services Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.)

“[i]f an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240(c)(1).)

A motion to compel further production “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1).) Where “there is no privilege issue or claim of attorney work product, that burden is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (citing Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial 2 (Rutter 1996) ¶¶ 8:1495.6 to 8:1495.10, pp. 8H–21 to 8H–22).)

To be relevant for purposes of discovery, the information sought must be relevant to the “subject matter” of the pending action or to the determination of a motion in that action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) The legal standards for admissibility of evidence at trial is quite different than the legal standards applicable for purposes of discovery, and materials or information need not be admissible to be discoverable. (See, e.g., Glenfed Dev. Corp., supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at 1117 [“Admissibility is not the test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence.”]; Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546; Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 301.) “Relevancy to the subject matter has been construed to be broader than relevancy to issues and may vary with the size of the case.” (Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Superior Court (Rios) (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1392 (internal citations omitted).)

For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence or might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. (Gonzalez, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at 1546; see Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010 [“…[a]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”].) The rules are applied liberally in favor permitting discovery, which means that the so called “fishing expedition” may be permitted in some cases. (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013; see Gonzalez, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at 1546.) There is no “single, comprehensive standard of relevancy,” but past cases have provided certain guidelines. (Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 172.)

In deciding a motion to compel further responses brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, courts consider not only the stated objections to the discovery requests, but also the requests themselves, as well as the pleadings, and the contentions of the propounding party as to the purpose and validity of the inspection demands. (Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 18.)

Once good cause is shown, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to justify the objection(s). (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 97.)

2. Meet and Confer

“The Discovery Act requires that, prior to the initiation of a motion to compel, the moving party declare that he or she has made a serious attempt to obtain an informal resolution of each issue.” (Stewart, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at 1016.) “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion 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.)

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff complied with the meet and confer requirements. (Robert Kubler Decl., ¶¶ 2-8.)

3. Discussion

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Request Nos. 32-49.

The Court finds there is good cause to compel discovery. The requested information is relevant, and the requests are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

To the extent Defendant asserts a privacy privilege, she must submit a privilege log identifying the documents and the grounds for establishing protection for the determination of the applicability of such privilege. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240(c)(1) [“If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.”].)

Defendant failed to file any opposition, thereby conceding Plaintiff’s arguments that her objections are insufficient or lack merit.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to request for production of documents is GRANTED.

B. Motion To Compel Further Responses To Form Interrogatories, Set One & Motion To Compel Further Responses To Special Interrogatories (Sets One And Two)

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 8.4 and 15.0.

With respect to Form Interrogatories, Set One No. 15.0, Plaintiff argues (1) that Defendant’s failed to respond to all affirmative defenses others than the Fifth, Sixth, and Eleventh Affirmative Defenses; (2) the responses to the Fifth, Sixth, and Eleventh Affirmative Defenses are inadequate; and (3) Defendant failed to identify witnesses and documents.

With respect to Form Interrogatories, Set One No. 8.4, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s objections are untimely and, even if timely, lack merit.

Plaintiff also moves to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Sets One and Two, Nos. 3, 7, 9-10, 12, 25-26, 30, 31-32, 34-35, 38, 41, 44, 46-47, 49-50, 52-53, 55-56, 58, 62-64, 66-67, 69-72, 74-78, arguing that Defendant’s objections lack merit and the responses fail to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220.

Defendant failed to file an opposition to either motion, effectively consenting to the Court granting the relief requested. See Cal. R. Ct., 8.54(c) [“A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion.”]; Sexton, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at 1410.)

1. Legal Standards

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.)¿

A motion to compel further responses to interrogatories may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections.¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(c).)¿

It is not necessary for the motion to show that the material sought will be admissible in evidence. “Good cause” may be found to justify discovery where specific facts show that the discovery is necessary for effective trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial. (See Associated Brewers Dist. Co. v. Superior Court (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 586-588; see also Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2017.010, 2019.030(a)(1) (Information is discoverable if it is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and it is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.); Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611-1612 (noting a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence).)¿

¿¿

If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure fully to answer. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221 [addressing a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories]; see also Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)¿

Furthermore, to the extent there is any doubt in whether these records should be discoverable, California’s liberal approach to discovery provides that doubt should be resolved in favor of permitting discovery. (Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 173.)¿

2. Meet and Confer

A motion to compel further discovery responses must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration stating “facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.310, subd. (b)(2); 2016.040.)¿¿

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff complied with the meet and confer requirements. (Robert Kubler Decl. ISO FROG, ¶¶ 3-8; Robert Kubler Decl. ISO SPROG, ¶¶ 2-9.)

3. Discussion

i. Form Interrogatories

Upon review of Defendant’s responses, and given the lack of any opposition, the Court GRANTS the motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 8.4 and 15.0. The Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff’s responses are inadequate.

ii. Special Interrogatories

The Court finds there is good cause to compel discovery. The requested information is relevant, and the requests are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Court finds Defendant’s responses are inadequate and fail to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories Sets One and Two, Nos. 3, 7, 9-10, 12, 25-26, 30, 31-32, 34-35, 38, 41, 44, 46-47, 49-50, 52-53, 55-56, 58, 62-64, 66-67, 69-72, 74-78 is GRANTED.