Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 20STCV16189, Date: 2023-08-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV16189 Hearing Date: December 19, 2023 Dept: 47
Tentative Ruling
Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47
HEARING DATE: December 19, 2023 TRIAL DATE: NOT
SET
CASE: Gary Peterson et al. v. State Farm
General Ins. Co. et al.
CASE NO.: 20STCV16189 
(1)
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION (x2)
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Gary Peterson and Robin Barton-Peterson
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant State
Farm General Insurance Co.
CASE
HISTORY:
·
04/28/20: Complaint filed.
·
06/26/20: First Amended Complaint filed.
STATEMENT
OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
This is a breach of contract and negligence case. Plaintiffs contend that
Defendants failed to pay the entirety of Plaintiffs’ insurance claims following
the loss of their home in the Woolsey Fire, and mishandled Plaintiffs’
insurance coverage.
Plaintiffs move to compel further
responses to two identical sets of Requests for Production propounded to
Defendant.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
Further Responses to Requests for Production (Set Three) is GRANTED. Defendant
is ordered to produce verified, code-compliant responses to Requests Nos.
41-43, 49-53, and 58 through 60 without objections within 30 days of the date
of this order.
With respect to Requests Nos. 27,
31, and 32, Defendant is ordered to produce verified, code-compliant responses
without objections, conditioned on the Court’s approval of a disclosure and
consent form prepared by Plaintiffs pursuant to Insurance Code section 791.13 et
seq and Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court
(1982) 31 Cal.3d 786. Plaintiffs’ proposal shall be served on all parties and
filed with the Court on or before January 12, 2024.
The Court sets a Hearing Re:
Approval of Disclosure Process and Consent Form for Wednesday, January 24, 2024
at 1:30 PM
DISCUSSION:
Plaintiffs
move to compel further responses to two identical sets of Requests for
Production propounded to Defendant. Although Plaintiffs initially moved to
compel responses to Requests 25 through 60, accounting for the bulk of the set
propounded to Defendant, Plaintiffs state in their reply brief filed August 30
that they are limiting the scope of the motion to Request Nos. 27, 31, 32, 41
through 43, 49 through 53, and 58 through 60. As the two motions and sets of
discovery are identical, the Court will jointly rule on both motions here as
narrowed by Plaintiffs.
Legal Standard
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (a), a court
may order a party to serve a further response to a demand for inspection when
the court finds that: “(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is
incomplete[;] (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate,
incomplete, or evasive[; or] (3) An objection in the response is without merit
or too general.”
The burden is on the moving party to “set forth specific facts showing
good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., §
2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) These facts must also be set forth in a separate
statement filed by the moving party. (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1345(c).) This
burden “is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins.
Servs. Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.)
Timeliness
A motion to compel further
responses to requests for production must be served “within 45 days of the
service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on
or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding
party have agreed in writing.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(c).) The 45-day
requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional. (Sexton v. Superior Court¿(1997)
58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)
Plaintiffs propounded the discovery
at issue in this motion on January 20, 2023. (Declaration of Samuel Bruchey ISO
Mot. ¶ 2.) Defendant provided initial responses on February 22, 2023. (Id.
¶¶ 3.) The final day to give notice of this motion as therefore, April 10, 2023
by operation of law. This motion was filed on May 22, 2023, more than a month
past the deadline. However, after the issue was raised at a previous hearing on
September 25, 2023, Plaintiffs’ counsel provided the Court with an email dated
April 11, 2023 to Defendant’s counsel confirming that the parties agreed to an
open extension of time to file this motion. (Supplemental Declaration of Samuel
Bruchey ISO Mot. Exh. 1.) This motion is therefore timely.
Meet and Confer
A party making a motion to compel further responses must also include a
declaration stating facts showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to
resolve informally the issues presented by the motion before filing the motion.
(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)
The Declaration of Samuel Bruchey in support of the Motions states that the
parties met and conferred via email between March 20, 2023 and March 30, 2023.
(Declaration of Samuel Bruchey ISO Mot. ¶¶ 4-5.) The Court therefore finds that
Plaintiffs have satisfied their statutory meet and confer obligations.
Good Cause
Plaintiffs
contend that good cause exists to compel further responses to each of the
remaining discovery requests.
Requests
Nos. 27 and 32 seek claim files for Woolsey Fire insureds for whom Defendant
retained ALE Solutions or THD housing to either determine the rental value for
the purpose of Loss of Use benefit calculation, or to assist the insureds in
locating temporary housing. (Declaration of Matthew Batezel ISO Opp. Exh. 8
Nos. 27, 32.) Request No. 31 seeks Woolsey Fire claim files whose loss of use
claims were managed by Kevin English, one of the claim adjusters who managed
Plaintiffs’ claims. (Id. No. 31.) Requests Nos. 41, 42, and 49 appear to
be identical and seek all documents concerning Plaintiffs’ loss ratio and cost
containment or profit maximization directives applicable to California and in
force since 2015, while Request No. 43 seeks the same but only as applicable to
residents of Malibu, California. (Nos. 41-43, 49.) Requests Nos. 50 through 53 also
seek the same, but only those documents written after other specified wildfire
events. (Nos. 50-53.) Finally, Requests Nos. 58 through 60 seek training
materials for adjusters pertaining to either handling or adjustment of loss of
use claims, rental value determination for insured properties, or rental value
determination of residence premises, as would have been provided or effective
from January 1, 2015 to November 8, 2018.
In response
to each request, Defendant asserted boilerplate objections that the requests are
vague and ambiguous, overbroad and unduly burdensome, not relevant nor
reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence, seek information
protected from disclosure under Insurance Code section 791.13, and seek
confidential business information. (See Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement Nos. 27,
31, 32, 41-43, 49-53, 58-60.) Defendant also objected to each request to the
extent that they seek information protected by the attorney-client privilege or
the work product doctrine. (Id.)
Plaintiffs
contend that each of the categories of documents sought are relevant to this
case because they would tend to show—or would lead to admissible evidence that
would show—that Defendant engaged in a pattern and practice of undervaluing California
properties destroyed or damaged by wildfires by excluding appurtenant
structures and grounds from the definition of “residence premises” as defined
in their Policy. Indeed, such material is clearly relevant to Plaintiffs’ claim
for punitive damages. (Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior
Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 786, 791-92.) The Court therefore finds that
Plaintiffs have demonstrated good cause to seek these materials.
Defendant’s Objections
In response
to each request, Defendant asserted boilerplate objections that the requests are
vague and ambiguous, overbroad and unduly burdensome, not relevant nor
reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence, seek information
protected from disclosure under Insurance Code section 791.13, and seek
confidential business information. (See, e.g., Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement
No. 27.) Defendant also objected to each request to the extent that they seek
information protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product
doctrine. (Id.) The Court addresses these objections by category below.
1.
Relevance
Defendant
objects to each request on the basis that none of the information sought is
relevant because Defendant was not obligated to include structures on the
subject premises other than Plaintiffs’ principal dwelling for the purpose of
determining rental value for Additional Living Expense calculation. The Court
expressly rejected this contention, as stated in its ruling on Plaintiffs’
Motion for Summary Adjudication. (October 25, 2023 Ruling on Matter Taken Under
Submission.) Defendant’s relevance objections are therefore without merit.
2.
Personal Information of Other Insureds
Defendant
objects to each request on the basis that they seek materials containing the
personal information of other insured persons which is expressly protected from
disclosure without their consent under Insurance Code section 791.13(a).
Defendants do not distinguish between the many requests at issue in asserting
these objections, and do not explain how, for example, training materials for
adjusters would disclose the personal information of other insureds. Nevertheless,
Request Nos. 27, 31, and 32 expressly seek the claim files of other insureds,
and therefore this objection is plainly relevant to those requests.
Insurance
Code section 791.13 states that [a]n insurance institution, agent, or
insurance-support organization shall not disclose any personal or privileged
information about an individual collected or received in connection with an
insurance transaction” except under certain specified conditions, including, inter
alia, the written authorization of the individual, (Ins. Code § 791.13(a),)
or when the disclosure “is in response to a facially valid administrative or
judicial order.” (Ins. Code § 791.13(h).) When authorizing disclosures subject
to this provision, courts typically limit the permissible scope of discovery to
the names and addresses of claimants (see, e.g., Colonial Life &
Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 786, 792), and require
that the party seeking disclosure compose a letter to be sent to each claimant
seeking their permission to disclose the data in the respective files. (Mead
Reinsurance Co. v. Superior Court (City of Laguna Beach) (1986) 188
Cal.App.3d 313 322-23.) Plaintiffs agree that this procedure is applicable. The
Court therefore directs Plaintiff to present a proposed procedure and consent
form to be approved by the Court.
3.
Undue Burden
Although
Defendant asserted objections of undue burden as to each of the requests
propounded, Defendant makes no effort to justify those objections in its
opposition save with respect to Plaintiffs’ requests for claim files. As to
those objections, the Court observes that Defendant has provided estimates of
the number of claim files that would have to be searched and the potential cost
estimates, which would encompass several hundred files and tens of thousands of
dollars. (Declaration of John Grubaugh ISO Opp. ¶¶ 5, 11; Declaration of Chad
Sherman ISO Opp. ¶¶ 6-8, 12, 14.) That said, considering the narrowing of
Plaintiff’s requests as described above, the Court is not persuaded that production
should not be ordered, but finds it appropriate to order that Plaintiffs will bear
the costs of searching for these documents.
Defendant
makes no effort to address its burden objections as to any other request, and
has therefore failed to justify them.
4.
Financial Information
Defendant
objects to Requests Nos. 41 through 43 and 49 through 53 as seeking financial
records that are protected from disclosure at this stage of the litigation.
Civil Code
section 3925(c) prohibits a plaintiff from seeking pretrial discovery of
evidence of “(1) the profits the defendant has gained by virtue of the wrongful
course of conduct of the nature and type shown by the evidence” or “(2) the
financial condition of the defendant” unless the Court finds after a hearing, “on
the basis of the supporting and opposing affidavits presented, that the
plaintiff has established that there is a substantial probability that the
plaintiff will prevail” on a claim for punitive damages. (Civ. Code § 3925(c).)
Defendant
construes these requests, which pertain to loss ratio and cost containment and
profit maximization directives—i.e., guidance or instructions—as seeking
evidence of Defendant’s profits or financial condition, without first having
made the requisite motion to do so to this Court. Plaintiffs do not address
this objection in reply briefing, but the Court does not share Defendant’s view
of the requests. Certainly, materials showing what profits Defendant has made
or showing its financial condition are protected under the plain language of
section 3295(c). What these requests appear to seek, however, is not evidence
of either, but evidence of Defendant’s conduct. The Court is therefore
not persuaded that these requests are improper on this basis.
5.
Ambiguity
Defendant does not address its
objections that the requests are vague and ambiguous. However, in the most
recent Status Report, Defendants contend that Requests 41 through 43 and 49
through 53 are unclear. (December 7 2023 Status Report p.4:13-15.) They are
not. These requests concern documents pertaining to insurance-specific concepts
such as loss ratios and cost-containment measures, and the identification of
responsive materials should be within Defendant’s knowledge.
6.
Already-Produced-Materials
Although Defendant did not raise
this objection in its papers, the Court observes that Defendant contends in the
Status Report that it produced all materials that are potentially responsive to
Requests Nos. 58 through 60. (Status Report p.4:20-27.) If Defendant has
produced all materials responsive to those requests, then its response to those
requests should identify those documents. Defendant has only responded to these
requests with objections which have not been justified. (Separate Statement
Nos. 58-60.) Further responses to these requests are required.
Defendant
does not address any of its other objections to the requests that remain at
issue in its opposition besides those identified here, and has therefore failed
to justify those objections.
As the
Court has found Defendant’s objections to be without merit, Plaintiffs are
entitled to an order compelling further responses.
CONCLUSION:
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production (Set Three) is GRANTED. Defendant
is ordered to produce verified, code-compliant responses to Requests Nos.
41-43, 49-53, and 58 through 60 without objections within 30 days of the date
of this order.
With respect to Requests Nos. 27,
31, and 32, Defendant is ordered to produce verified, code-compliant responses
without objections, conditioned on the Court’s approval of a disclosure and
consent form prepared by Plaintiffs pursuant to Insurance Code section 791.13 et
seq and Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court
(1982) 31 Cal.3d 786. Plaintiffs’ proposal shall be served on all parties and
filed with the Court on or before January 12, 2024.
The Court sets a Hearing Re:
Approval of Disclosure Process and Consent Form for Wednesday, January 24, 2024
at 1:30 PM
Moving
Parties to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 19,
2023 ___________________________________
Theresa
M. Traber
Judge
of the Superior Court
Any party may submit on the
tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day
before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It
should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still
conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you
have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you
should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an
order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.