Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 21STCV03286, Date: 2025-05-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV03286    Hearing Date: May 12, 2025    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

            Background

Plaintiffs Marc Savas and Alicia Savas (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendant State Farm General Insurance Company (“Defendant”) on January 26, 2021. Plaintiffs allege Defendant, their insurer, breached the parties’ insurance contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Discovery in this action closed for most purposes on July 31, 2023. On June 11, 2024, the Court ordered discovery re-opened “for the limited purpose of investigating Defendant’s ‘Water Loss Initiative[,]’ ‘Water Loss Forum[,]’ and its policies, procedures, related documents and training concerning residential water loss claim handling.” (06-11-2024 Minute Order.)

Plaintiffs subsequently propounded Requests for Production of Documents (“RPDs”), Sets Two and Three, on June 14 and July 3, 2024, respectively. (Downey Decl., ¶¶ 8-9 and Exhs. 2-3.) Defendant responded; Plaintiffs contended the responses were insufficient. The parties attended an Informal Discovery Conference with the Court on November 5, 2024.

The Court’s November 5, 2024 Minute Order records the parties’ agreement on the subject discovery as follows, in relevant part:

“On or before November 26, 2024, Defendant will serve verified further supplemental responses to request for production set 2 two numbers 75 through 77, 80 and 84 and set 3 regarding the removal of the privilege and work product objections adding any explanations as to the scope and time frame, and clarifying bates numbers and Defendant's interpretation of the documents requested (i.e., clarification of the document produced which may not match exactly the description provided by Plaintiff).”

(11-05-2024 Minute Order, p. 1.)

            Defendant served supplemental responses on November 25, 2024. (Downey Decl., ¶ 17.) The parties met and conferred, and Defendant served another set of supplemental responses on January 31, 2025. (Id., ¶ 19.)

            On February 18, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their instant motion to compel further responses to their RPDs, Sets Two and Three. On April 29, 2025, Defendant filed its opposition. On May 5, 2025, Plaintiffs replied.

Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (a) permits a propounding party to move for an order compelling a further response to a demand for inspection if the propounding party deems that a statement of compliance is incomplete, a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(a).) A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection must set forth specific facts showing good cause for the discovery sought and must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b).)

Plaintiffs helpfully group together the disputed discovery requests as follows:

In their moving papers, Plaintiffs identify “various documents that are identified, discussed or otherwise referenced within the documents [Defendant] has produced and which are referenced in their responses to [other] requests for production”, but which Defendant “has failed to produce . . . and has failed to provide any explanation as to why [they] are not being produced.” (Mot., 16:17-17:25.)

Specifically, Plaintiff argues Defendant’s responses are deficient for the following reasons:

1.         Defendant insists the Court has ordered that it only needs to produce documents that it has otherwise provided to its claims adjusters;

2.         Based on that purported Order, which limits disclosure to nonprivileged materials, Defendant has announced a meaningless withdrawal of privilege objections and refused to provide a privilege log; and

3.         Defendant has improperly provided responses that fail to attest to diligent search, or promise diligent search at an unspecified future time, or reserve the right to produce further documents.

In opposition, Defendant states it provided a new supplemental response on May 2, 2025 which moots Plaintiffs’ motion. In reply, Plaintiffs acknowledge some of their objections are resolved, but maintain that there are at least 12 documents Defendant continues to withhold without justification. (See Reply, 3:24-4:12, citing Downey Decl. iso Reply, ¶ 3.)

The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that Defendant’s interpretation of the Court’s order is incorrect; as a result, Defendant’s position that no privileged documents are responsive may be incorrect; and that nothing relieves Defendant of its statutory obligation to conduct a reasonable inquiry and diligent search for documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ requests.

As discussed in prior orders and conferences with the parties, Plaintiffs have  demonstrated good cause to discover material related to Defendant’s policies for handling claims like Plaintiffs’, which involve water and flooring damage. All the disputed documents appear to relate to such claims.

Order

Based on the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

(1)       Defendant must produce the documents that remain in dispute, identified at paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration in support of their Reply.

(2)       The Court’s IDC Order did not limit production to materials provided to claims adjusters. To the extent Defendant has failed to produce documents based on that erroneous interpretation, those responsive documents must be produced. If responsive documents are subject to privilege, Defendant must produce a privilege log.

(3)       Any equivocation in Defendant’s responses regarding its compliance with the Civil Discovery Act is improper. Defendant must verify its compliance for each response using the language in Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.220, 2031.230, or 2031.240, as appropriate.

Sanctions

A party unsuccessfully opposing a motion to compel further responses to requests for production is subject to mandatory monetary sanctions unless it demonstrates (1) substantial justification for failing to comply with its discovery obligations or (2) other circumstances that would make imposition of a sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(h).)

State Farm appears to have made a good-faith effort to comply with requests. Plaintiffs requested certain redundant documents in its demands for supplemental response, and State Farm thoroughly supplemented in January and again in May.

Sanctions are denied.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses. The Court orders Defendant to serve complete, verified responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production, Sets 2 and 3, on the terms set forth above within 20 days of notice of this Order.

Plaintiffs are ordered to provide notice of this Order.

DATED:  May 12, 2025                           ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court