Judge: Theodore R. Howard, Case: 20-1159200, Date: 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling

1 The Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two,

This motion was filed on 4/27/22 by defendant D’Vine Imports, Inc. d/b/a D’Vine Imports (“D’Vine”) (“Motion 1” below).

-Motion 2: The “Motion For An Order (1) To Deposit Bond Funds With Court; (2) For Exoneration and Dismissal of Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company; and (3) For an Award of Attorneys’ Fees And Costs,” filed on 5/2/22 by Defendant/Cross-Complainant Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (“Motion 2” below).

For Motion 1, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART. The Court finds that reconsideration is appropriate here, as D’Vine has adequately shown both new facts and reasonable diligence, since the two motions were served together on related discovery, and counsel acted promptly to seek relief when the mistake was discovered. The statute’s limitations are designed to conserve judicial resources by constraining litigants who would bring the same motions over and over, or move for reconsideration of every adverse order and then appeal the denial of the motion to reconsider. (Even Zohar Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 830, 839–840.)  That is not the situation here.  Alternatively, the discretionary prong of C.C.P. § 473(b) is adequately met, as the calendaring error as described under these circumstances is excusable, and not an issue of professional judgment. (See Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 249, 258, and Bettencourt v. Los Rios Community College Dist. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 270, 276.) 

However, the Court does not find that a different result is required, after considering the arguments presented, but for one modification. Specifically, D’Vine argues that the discovery at issue, based on the definition for “Identify” along with the qualification in the specific interrogatories allowing for “redaction” of “[a]ll buyer personal information” left D’Vine unclear as to what could be provided in response, beyond the document titles. The Court finds that D’Vine should thus be required to list responsive documents only by identifying the vehicle type (make, model, and year) sold and the date of sale.

D’Vine is therefore ordered to provide further responses to Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories Set Two, for Special Interrogatory Nos. 8-13, subject to that limitation, within 15 days.

 Counsel for D’Vine is to give notice of this ruling.

2. Motion For An Order (1) To Deposit Bond Funds With Court; (2) For Exoneration and Dismissal of Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company; and (3) For an Award of Attorneys’ Fees And Costs

For Motion 2, the unopposed motion of defendant and cross-complainant Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. for an order: (1) permitting it to deposit the penal sum of the bond, which is $50,000 minus any court-ordered costs and attorneys’ fees with the Court; (2) exonerating it from any and all liability, known and unknown, upon deposit of the bond; (3) restraining and prohibiting the prosecution of any further legal action against the bond; (4) dismissing the cause of action for interpleader; and (5) awarding attorneys’ fees of $5379.00 and costs of $715.00 is GRANTED.

Counsel for Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. is to give notice of this ruling.