ALEJANDRA TORRES VS STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANIES

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC01776    Hearing Date: September 21, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Mon., September 21, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Torres v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Companies

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC01776 COMP. FILED: NONE

NOTICE: OK DISC. C/O: NONE

MOTION C/O: NONE

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONDENT TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND/OR PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO CLAIMANT’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Alejandra Torres

RESP. PARTY: Respondent State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2031.310)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner Alejandra Torres’ Motion to Compel Further Production is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: Filed on June 23, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: Filed on June 25, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On February 19, 2019, Petitioner Alejandra Torres (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Commencement of Discovery Matters in an Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Arbitration against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, erroneously sued as State Farm Mutual Insurance Companies (“Respondent”).

On February 22, 2019, Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash Respondent’s Deposition Subpoena for Production of Claimant’s Medical Records. The Court took that motion off calendar on April 10, 2019, finding that, because the matter was in arbitration, the discovery dispute should have first been submitted to the arbitrator. (4/10/19 Minute Order.)

On February 27, 2020, Petitioner filed the instant Motion for Order Compelling Respondent to Produce Documents and/or Provide Further Responses to Claimant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion”). On June 23, 2020, Respondent filed an Opposition and on June 25, 2020, Petitioner filed a Reply. On June 30, 2020, Respondent filed a Response to the Reply.

At the initial hearing on July 7, 2020, the Court noted that it was unclear whether the Updated Privilege Log Respondent submitted with its Opposition was complete because at least one document included in Respondent’s initial Privilege Log was not included in its Updated Privilege Log. (7/7/20 Minute Order.) The Court also noted Petitioner’s argument that, contrary to Respondent’s argument, no new documents were produced. (Id.) Accordingly, the Court ordered Respondent to file and serve a revised privilege log identifying each document still being withheld and any applicable privilege. (Id.)

On September 8, 2020, Respondent filed a Response to the Court’s July 7^th Ruling. Petitioner has not filed any additional papers with the Court.

1. Legal Standard

Full discovery rights apply in arbitration proceedings of uninsured or underinsured coverage claims between insurers and their insured. (Ins. Code, § 11580, subd. (f).) Discovery motions of uninsured or underinsured claims are heard by the superior court, not by the arbitrator. (Miranda v. 21^st Century Insurance Co. (2004) 117 Cal.4th 913, 926.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides that “[o]n receipt of a response to demand for inspection . . ., the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response if the demanding party deems 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) [a]n objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

Notice of the motion must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).) The motion must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)

Finally, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345 requires that all motions involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(3)). However, “[i]n lieu of a separate statement required by the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(3).)

1. Discussion

In its supplemental papers, Respondent’s counsel explains she made an error in the initial privilege log. (9/8/20 Supp. Brief, p. 2:9-25.) Specifically, she explains that the document, described as “Letter from Alliance United re: State Farm Subrogation Demand,” was accidentally listed on the initial Privilege Log provided to Petitioner, which explains why it was not listed in the Updated Privilege Log. (Id., Grover Decl., ¶ 2.) She also explains that 200 pages of documents were mailed to Petitioner via UPS and provides a drop-off receipt and copy of an online confirmation demonstrating the package was delivered to Petitioner’s counsel’s office on June 24, 2020. (Id. at ¶ 3, Exh. 1.)

Petitioner has not submitted any additional papers arguing the 200 pages of documents Respondent produced on June 24, 2020 are insufficient. As it appears that Respondent’s June 24^th production has resolved the parties’ issues, this Motion is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner Alejandra Torres’ Motion to Compel Further Production is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.