Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 20STCP04263, Date: 2023-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCP04263    Hearing Date: April 10, 2023    Dept: 39

James River Insurance Company v. Jerry Luss

Case Number 20STCP04263

Motions to Compel

Motion to Deem Admitted

            Petitioner James River Insurance Company (“Petitioner”) filed this petition relating to discovery in an underinsured motorist arbitration involving Jerry Luss (“Respondent”).  The parties’ arbitration is scheduled for May 24 and May 25, 2023, with R.A. Carrington.  Now, Petitioner moves to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two (“FROG”), Special Interrogatories, Set Two (“SROG”), Supplemental Interrogatories, and Supplemental Requests for Production (“RPDs”).  Petitioner also moves to deem the matters specified in the Requests for Admission (“RFAs”) to have been admitted.

            Petitioner served discovery requests, and Respondent served unverified responses.  “Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.”  (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)  Respondent argues that the discovery requests are “harassing” in an effort to “attempt to stall and delay the arbitration in this matter” and that Petitioner’s counsel is engaged in “oppressive behavior.”  If so, the remedy is a motion for a protective order, not a refusal to provide a verification.  In fact, the Court previously found that Respondent has engaged in unnecessary litigation, delaying the proceedings and reflecting “a lack of mindfulness.”  (See Court’s Minute Order, dated March 13, 2023.)

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         Petitioner’s motions to compel are granted.  Respondent shall provide verified responses, without objections, within ten (10) days.

            2.         Petitioner’s motion to deem admitted is granted.  Respondent is deemed to have admitted everything in the RFAs.

            3.         Petitioner seeks sanctions against Respondent and his counsel-of-record, Blake Burtchaell, Esq.  The Court finds that Respondent’s conduct is an abuse of the discovery process warranting sanctions.  The Court finds that there was no substantial justification for the oppositions in this matter.  The Court orders Respondent and Mr. Burtchaell to pay sanctions, jointly and severally, in the amount of $2,888.25 based upon 12 hours at a billing rate of $215 for a total of $2,580 plus filing fees totaling $308.25.

            4.         Petitioner’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.