Case Number: BS172422 Hearing Date: March 29, 2018 Dept: 92

JESSIE MANOS,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE,

Defendant(s).

Case No.: BS172422

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S UNOPPOSED MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES; DENYING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO RFAS

Dept. 92

1:30 p.m.

March 29, 2018

Respondent, Farmers Insurance Exchange filed a petition to open an uninsured motorist’s action against Petitioner, Jessie Manos, in light of a failure to respond to discovery propounded in the parties’ uninsured motorists’ arbitration.

Discovery procedures available to the parties in uninsured motorist cases are basically the same as those available in California civil litigation, subject to certain limitations not applicable here. Ins.C. §11580.2(f). Jurisdiction to resolve discovery disputes (including the issuance of any orders to compel discovery) is vested in the superior court (a) in the proper county for the filing of a lawsuit against the uninsured motorist for bodily injury arising from the accident or (b) in any county specified in the policy as a proper county for arbitration or action on the policy. See Ins.C. §11580.2(f)(1), (2); Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 CA4th 913, 921-926.

The party seeking court assistance in connection with a discovery dispute need not file and serve on the other party a formal complaint. An “application to commence discovery” coupled, e.g., with a motion to compel compliance, may be filed with the court and, where the party against whom discovery is sought is represented by counsel, served upon counsel (per CCP §1015; see CCP §1012–service on counsel by mail). See Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co., supra, 117 CA4th at 927-928.

The superior court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and rule on discovery matters arising in a UM arbitration. The arbitrator has no such power. See Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co., supra, 117 CA4th at 924-926.

The motions to compel responses to form interrogatories, set one and special interrogatories, set two are unopposed and granted. Manos is ordered to serve responses, without objections, within ten days.

The motion to compel responses to RFAs is denied. Farmers cites CCP §2030.290, et seq as authority for the motion. §2030.290, et seq governs motions to compel responses to interrogatories. Pursuant to CCP §2033.280, the only permissible motion is one to deem the RFAs admitted. There is no authority for a motion to compel responses to RFAs.

Farmers seeks sanctions in the amount of $1065 in connection with each motion. Counsel bills at the reasonable rate of $250/hour. Notably, the math in Counsel’s supporting declaration does not add up, as Counsel declares one hour was billed to prepare each motion and two hours were billed to appear at the hearing; with a filing fee, this would come to $810/motion, not $1065/motion (filing fees are $60/motion, not $65/motion, as erroneously stated in the declaration). In any event, the Court awards one hour to prepare the motion concerning form interrogatories, one hour to prepare the motion concerning special interrogatories, no time for the motion concerning RFAs (as it is denied), and two hours total to appear at the hearing. The Court also awards two filing fees. The total sanctions award is therefore $1120.

Sanctions are sought and imposed against Claimant, Jessie Manos, only, in the amount of $1120; he is ordered to pay sanctions to Farmers, by and through its attorney of record, within twenty days.