15CV-01831 Sylvia Nicole vs. Farmers Insurance, et al.

Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, etc.

Defendant David Gould’s motion for an order compelling plaintiff Sylvia Nicole to provide responses to defendant’s form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for production of documents is DENIED. Defendant acknowledges in defense counsel’s supplemental declaration that plaintiff’s discovery responses were mailed by plaintiff prior to, but received by defendant after, the filing of the present motion because plaintiff mailed her responses to the law firm’s previous address. Plaintiff’s mistake in mailing her responses to an old address is understandable since defendants have continued to use the previous address on most documents filed with the court since defendants filed notice of a change of address in 2017.

The prevailing party is directed to prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and to provide notice thereof to the opposing party/counsel as required by law and the California Rules of Court. The order is to be submitted by electronic filing to Hon. Brian L. McCabe.

The following tentative rulings shall become the ruling of the court unless a party gives notice of intention to appear as follows: 1. You must call (209) 725-4240 to notify the court of your intent to appear. 2. You must give notice to all other parties before 4:00 p.m. of your intent to appear. Per California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1), failure to do both items 1 and 2 will result in no oral argument. Note: Notifying Court Call of your intent to appear does not satisfy the requirement of notifying the court.
Motion for Evidence Sanctions, etc.

The motion by defendant Fire Insurance Exchange (erroneously sued as Farmers Insurance) for evidence sanctions, issues sanctions, terminating sanctions and additional monetary sanctions against plaintiff for her failure to comply with the Court’s January 26, 2018 order is DENIED. Defendant acknowledges in defense counsel’s supplemental declaration that plaintiff’s discovery responses were mailed by plaintiff prior to, but received by defendant after, the filing of the present motion. The Court also denies the motion to the extent it is based on plaintiff’s failure to pay ordered monetary sanctions. The failure to pay sanctions is not a misuse of the discovery process. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.) The Court notes that monetary sanctions orders are enforceable as money judgments. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2017) ¶ 8:2031.)