Quantcast
Channel: Legal News
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 1645

DWON PHILLIP-HILL VS MERCURY INSURANCE

$
0
0

Case Number: BS174602 Hearing Date: January 16, 2019 Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL CLAIMANT’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS; GRANTED

This uninsured motorist arbitration arises out of a January 17, 2017 automobile accident. Respondent California Automobile Insurance Company (formerly Mercury Insurance) (“Respondent”) moves to compel discovery responses from Claimant Dwon Phillip-Hill (“Claimant”).

The California Insurance Code requires an insurer to provide uninsured motorists coverage in each bodily lability insurance policy it issues covering liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle. (Ins. Code., § 1158.2, subd. (a)(1), (a)(2).) The policy “shall provide that the determination as to whether the insured shall be legally entitled to recover damages, and if so entitled, the amount thereof, shall be made by agreement between the insured and the insurer or, in the event of disagreement, by arbitration.” (Ins. Code., § 1158.2, subd. (f).) The Insurance Code adopts the Civil Discovery Act in its entirety and “grants the superior court the exclusive jurisdiction to hear discovery matters arising under uninsured motorist arbitrations.” (Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2008) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, 926.)

On August 15, 2018, Respondent served Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Demand for Production of Documents on Claimant. (Declaration of Scott M. Koppel, ¶ 8.) Respondent granted an extension on responses until October 3, 2018. (Koppel Decl., ¶ 10.) After no responses were received, Respondent sent a meet and confer letter to Claimant’s counsel on October 10, 2018. (Koppel Decl., ¶ 12.) Respondent sent a second meet and confer letter on October 25, 2018. (Koppel Decl., ¶ 13.) To date, Claimant has served no response to Respondent’s meet and confer letters and no responses to discovery requests. (Koppel Decl., ¶ 14.)

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).) Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.)

Claimant filed no opposition to these Motions and did not serve timely responses to Respondent’s requests for discovery. Accordingly, the Motions to compel are GRANTED and Claimant is ordered to serve verified responses, without objection, to Respondent’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Demand for Production within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

The Court notes that only two filing fees were paid for these motions to compel responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and demand for production, which should have been filed as three separate motions and three filing fees paid. Respondent is ordered to pay the additional filing fee and to bring proof of payment to the hearing on these motions. If Respondent fails to pay the additional filing fee, the hearing will be continued so that payment may be made.

Where the court grants a motion to compel responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).) The request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED and imposed against Claimant and his counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $490.00 for two hours at Respondent’s counsel’s hourly rate of $155.00, the $120.00 filing fees already paid, and the $60.00 filing fee ordered to be paid, to be paid to Respondent’s counsel within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 1645

Trending Articles