Judge Walter P. Schwarm, Case 30-2022-01257143 2023-07-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Walter P. Schwarm, Case: 30-2022-01257143, Date: 2023-07-18 Tentative Ruling

Motion No. 1:

Plaintiff’s (Crown Valley Holdings, LLC) Motion to Compel Defendant AMCO Insurance to Provide Further Responses to Requests for Admissions (Set One) (Motion), filed on 12-9-22 under ROA No. 69, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The court DECLINES TO RULE on Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections, filed on 5-16-23 under ROA No. 129, because they are immaterial to the court’s decision as set forth below. immaterial to the court’s decision as set forth below. (Silverado Modjeska Recreation & Parks District v. County of Orange (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 282, 307, fn. 18.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290 states, in part, “(a) On receipt of a response for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply: [¶] (1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete. [¶] (2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general. [¶] (b)(1) A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. . . . [¶] (c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the requesting party waives any right to compel further response to the requests for admission. . . .”

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.210 states in part, “(a) The party to whom requests for admission have been directed shall respond in writing under oath separately to each request. [¶] (b) Each response shall answer the substance of the requested admission, or set forth an objection to the particular request. . . .”

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220 provides, “(a) Each answer in a response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. [¶] (b) Each answer shall: [¶] (1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party. [¶] (2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue. [¶] (3) Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge. [¶] (c) If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.”

Fairmont Insurance Company v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255, explains, “Or a party may object to a particular discovery request, placing the burden on the party seeking discovery to enforce discovery through a motion to compel.” Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541 (Williams), states, “While the party propounding interrogatories may have the burden of filing a motion to compel if it finds the answer it receives unsatisfactory, the burden to justify any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with the party resisting an interrogatory. [Citation.]” “A trial court ‘shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.’ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.020, subd. (a).) However, as with other objections in response to interrogatories, the party opposing discovery has an obligation to supply the basis for this determination. An ‘objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required.’ (West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 56 Cal.2d at p. 417, 15 Cal.Rptr. 119, 364 P.2d 295.) As the objecting party, Marshalls had the burden of supplying supporting evidence, but in response to Williams's motion to compel it offered none. Given this, the trial court had nothing in the record upon which to base a comparative judgment that any responsive burden would be undue or excessive, relative to the likelihood of admissible evidence being discovered.” (Id., at pp. 549-550; footnotes 5 and 6 omitted.)

The Motion seeks to compel further responses to Request for Admission (RFA) Nos. 1-15, and 17. (Motion; 2:6-9.) Defendant’s (Amco Insurance Company) Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions Set One (Opposition), filed on 5-10-23 under ROA No. 115, asserts, “As to those bases upon which Crown Valley challenges AMCO’s responses and did meet and confer, the motion should likewise be denied, on substance. In each case, after interposing appropriate objections, AMCO provided a response consistent with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033.220(a) and (b)(1-3).” (Opposition; 4:9-12.)

Based on Plaintiff’s Separate Statement (PSS), filed on 12-9-22 under ROA No. 65, the court DENIES the Motion as to RFA Nos. 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 because the responses sufficiently comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220, subdivisions (a) and (b).

The court GRANTS the Motion as to RFA Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 because the responses do not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220, subdivision (c), which requires the responding party to state “. . . that a reasonable inquiry has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable the party to admit the matter.” Defendant’s response to RFA No. 17 states in part, “. . . AMCO is informed and believes that Crown Valley advised of its decision to contribute all or part of its judgment . . . .” (PSS; 30:2-9.) Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220, does not permit a response based on information and belief. Therefore, the court GRANTS the Motion as to RFA No. 17.

Based on the above, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s (Crown Valley Holdings, LLC) Motion to Compel Defendant AMCO Insurance to Provide Further Responses to Requests for Admissions (Set One), filed on 12-9-22 under ROA No. 69, as to RFA Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 17. The court ORDERS Defendant to provide Code of Civil Procedure compliant responses to RFA Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 17 within 14 days of the date of service of the notice of the court’s ruling. The court DENIES the Motion as to RFA Nos. 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. The court DENIES each party’s request for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (d).) Since both parties achieved success in bringing the Motion and opposing the Motion, the court finds that an award of a monetary sanction in favor of either party is unjust.

Moving Party is to give notice.

Motion No. 2:

Plaintiff’s (Crown Valley Holdings, LLC) Motion to Compel Defendant AMCO Insurance to Provide Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) (Motion), filed on 12-9-22 under ROA No. 77, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The court DECLINES TO RULE on Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections, filed on 5-16-23 under ROA No. 125, because they are immaterial to the court’s decision as set forth below. immaterial to the court’s decision as set forth below. (Silverado Modjeska Recreation & Parks District v. County of Orange (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 282, 307, fn. 18.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 provides in pertinent part: “(a) On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: [¶] (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. [¶] (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. [¶] (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.

“The party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory by any of the following: [¶] (1) An answer containing the information sought to be discovered. [¶] (2) An exercise of the party's option to produce writings. [¶] (3) An objection to the particular interrogatory. . . .” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.210, subd. (a).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220 states, “(a) Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. [¶] (b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible. [¶] (c) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.”

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230 states, “If the answer to an interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the party to whom the interrogatory is directed, and if the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the party propounding the interrogatory as for the responding party, it is a sufficient answer to that interrogatory to refer to this section and to specify the writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained. This specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained. The responding party shall then afford to the propounding party a reasonable opportunity to examine, audit, or inspect these documents and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries of them.”

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.240 provides, “(a) If only a part of an interrogatory is objectionable, the remainder of the interrogatory shall be answered. [¶] (b) If an objection is made to an interrogatory or to a part of an interrogatory, the specific ground for the objection shall be set forth clearly in the response. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be clearly stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product . . . that claim shall be expressly asserted.”

The Motion seeks to compel further responses to Form Interrogatory (FI) Nos. 1.1, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.6, 14.2, 16.1, 17.1, 50.1, 50.2, 50.3, 50.4, 50.5, and 50.6. (Motion; 2:1-9.) Defendant’s (Amco Insurance Company) Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories-General (Set One) (Opposition), filed on 5-10-23 under ROA No. 109, states, “As to those bases upon which Crown Valley challenges AMCO’s responses and did meet and confer, the motion should likewise be denied, on substance. In each case, after interposing appropriate objections, AMCO provided a response consistent with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.210 et seq.” (Opposition; 1:27-2:2.)

The court notes that the discovery request defines “Incident” as including, “. . . the circumstances and events surrounding the alleged accident, injury, or other occurrence or breach of contract giving rise to this action or proceeding.” (Hicks Decl., ¶ 1 and Exhibit 1-C.) The Complaint, filed on 4-29-22 under ROA No. 2, alleges causes of action for breach of duty and breach of contract based on an insurance policy between Plaintiff and Defendant. (Complaint, ¶¶ 3, 54-60, and 69-74.)

Based on Plaintiff’s Separate Statement (PSS), filed on 12-9-22 under ROA No. 57, the court GRANTS the Motion as to FI Nos. 1.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.6, and 14.2 because Defendant has not answered all of the subparts requested by these interrogatories.

As to FI No. 15.1, Defendant’s response does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230 because it does not “. . . specify the writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained. . . .” (See PSS at 11:9-14.) Therefore, the court GRANTS the Motion as to FI No. 15.1.

As to FI No. 12.1, the court DENIES the Motion as to subparts (a) and (b) because there is no scene of the incident. The court GRANTS the Motion as to subparts (c) and (d) because they pertain to the incident involving the breach of the insurance policy.

As to FI No. 17.1, the court GRANTS the Motion as to FI Nos. 17.1 pertaining to Request for Admission (RFA) Nos. 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 as to subpart (c). As to RFA Nos. 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, the court DENIES the Motion as to subparts (a), (b), and (c) as to RFA Nos. 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. As to RFA Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 17 the court GRANTS the Motion based on the updated responses Defendant will provide as to these RFAs consistent with the court’s ruling on Motion No. 1.

As to FI Nos. 50.1, 50.2, 50.3, 50.4, 50.5, and 50.6, the court finds that Defendant’s responses comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220. Therefore, the court DENIES the Motion as to FI Nos. 50.1, 50.2, 50.3, 50.4, 50.5, and 50.6.

Based on the above, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s (Crown Valley Holdings, LLC) Motion to Compel Defendant AMCO Insurance to Provide Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), filed on 12-9-22 under ROA No. 77, as to FI Nos. 1.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.6, 14.2, 12.1 as to subparts (c) and (d), and 15.1. The court GRANTS the Motion as to parts of FI No. 17.1 as set forth above. The court ORDERS Defendant to provide Code of Civil Procedure compliant responses to FI Nos. 1.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.6, 14.2, 12.1 as to subparts (c) and (d), 15.1, and 17.1 within 14 days of the date of service of the notice of the court’s ruling. The court DENIES the Motion as to subparts (a) and (b) of FI No. 12.1, 50.1, 50.2, 50.3, 50.4, 50.5, and 50.6. The court DENIES the Motion as to parts of FI No. 17.1 as set forth above.

The court DENIES each party’s request for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).) Since both parties achieved success in bringing the Motion and opposing the Motion, the court finds that an award of a monetary sanction in favor of either party is unjust.

Plaintiff is to give notice.

Motion No. 3:

Plaintiff’s (Crown Valley Holdings, LLC) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) (Motion), filed on 12-9-22 under ROA No. 73, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The court DECLINES TO RULE on Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections, filed on 5-16-23 under ROA No. 137, because they are immaterial to the court’s decision as set forth below. immaterial to the court’s decision as set forth below. (Silverado Modjeska Recreation & Parks District v. County of Orange (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 282, 307, fn. 18.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides: “(a) On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: [¶] (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. [¶] (b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with each of the following: [¶] (1) the motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand. [¶] (2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. . . [¶] (c) Unless notice of this motion is given 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 demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.”

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.220 states, “A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.”

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240 states, “(a) If only part of an item or category of item in a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is objectionable, the response shall contain a statement of compliance, or a representation of inability to comply with respect to the remainder of that item or category. [¶] (b) If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of an item or category of item, the response shall do both of the following: [¶] (1) Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made. [¶] (2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted. [¶] (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. [¶] (2) It is the intent of the Legislature to codify the concept of a privilege log as that term is used in California case law. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to constitute a substantive change in case law.”

Glenfed Development Corporation v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (Glenfed), states, “In the more specific context of a request to produce documents, a party who seeks to compel production must show ‘good cause’ for the request (§ 2031, subd. (l))-but where, as here, there is no privilege issue or claim of attorney work product, that burden is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance. [Citation.]” (Footnote 3 omitted.)

The Motion seeks to compel further responses to the Requests for Production (RFP) contained in Plaintiff’s Separate Statement filed on 12-9-22 under ROA No. 65. Defendant’s (Amco Insurance Company) Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) (Opposition), filed on 5-10-23 under ROA No. 111, states, “As to those bases upon which Crown Valley challenges AMCO’s responses and did meet and confer, the motion should likewise be denied, on substance. In each case, after interposing appropriate objections, AMCO provided a response consistent with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033.220(a) and (b)(1-3).” (Opposition; 1:26-2:2 (The court assumes that the reference to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220 is a mistake because this code section applies to admissions.).)

The court GRANTS the Motion as to RFP Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7-30, 32, 33, and 35 because Defendant’s responses to these RFPs that it will produce all “non-objectionable” does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, and are evasive. The court GRANTS the Motion as to RFP No. 6 because the Opposition does not support the asserted objections with analysis. (Opposition; 5:2-18.) The court DENIES the Motions as to RFP Nos. 2, 31, and 34 because Defendant provided Code of Civil Procedure compliant responses.

Based on the above, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s (Crown Valley Holdings, LLC) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), filed on 12-9-22 under ROA No. 73, as to RFP Nos. 1, 3, 5-30, 32, 33, and 35. The court ORDERS Defendant to Defendant to provide Code of Civil Procedure compliant responses to RFP Nos. 1, 3, 5-30, 32, 33, and 35 within 14 days of the date of service of the notice of the court’s ruling. To the extent that Defendant is withholding documents based on privilege or work product, Defendant shall produce a privilege log pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240, subdivisions (c)(1) and (2). The court awards a monetary sanction against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $5,680.00. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h); Leventhal Decl., ¶¶ 14 and 15.) In light of the minimal success Defendant achieved on the Motion, the court finds that Defendant was not substantially justified in opposing the Motion.

Plaintiff is to give notice.