2017-00214706-CU-PA

Vicki Akers vs. Yeewen Chen Wang

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Form Interrogatories

Filed By: Claire, Shannon N.

The motion of Plaintiffs Vicki Akers and Donald Akers (collectively “Plaintiffs”) to compel a further response to Form Interrogatory 4.1 is GRANTED; sanctions DENIED.

This is a personal injury case involving a vehicle collision. Plaintiffs allege that Yeewen Chen Wang and the latter’s employer, Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, (HP) are liable for their injuries.

Plaintiffs served HP with a first set of form interrogatories. Form Interrogatory 4.1 calls for insurance information, including the identities of the carriers, the kind of coverage, the policy limits and whether a carrier had raised a reservation of rights. HP objected that the interrogatory is irrelevant, not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence and overbroad. Subject to these objections, it identified an insurance carrier, policy number, coverage period and policy limits. In addition, HP asserted that it had unidentified “excess policies.”

Plaintiffs contested the sufficiency of the response, including HP’s failure to identify its excess carriers. Counsel met and conferred, and HP served an amended response. HP retained all objections but added that there was no reservation of rights under the sole policy identified. It also provided an address where that policy was kept. It indicated once again that there were unidentified excess policies.

Plaintiffs were still unsatisfied, and counsel met and conferred again. Plaintiffs’

counsel asked a second time for information about the excess carriers. HP did not serve a further response, and this motion followed.

HP’s position is that, because it has determined Plaintiffs’ claimed injuries are well within the $2.5 million policy limit in the policy it specifically identified, there is no chance any excess coverage will come into play. HP predicates its damages estimate on discovery that Plaintiffs have produced, i.e., discovery responses identifying Plaintiffs’ injuries and economic losses. (See Dolin Decl., ¶¶ 6-10.) HP also denies that Wang was at fault and, on that basis, suggests Plaintiffs’ damages could be zero.

HP’s objections are overruled. HP is required to serve a further amended response that identifies all excess carriers and provides the requested information about them. HP’s unilateral determination that damages are within the primary policy’s limits does not render the interrogatory objectionable on any ground raised in the original or first amended response.

HP’s argument that Plaintiffs’ counsel was required to meet and confer more fully before filing the motion lacks merit. HP knew long and well that Plaintiffs sought identification of the excess carriers, but HP failed to provide that information.

HP shall serve the further response no later than 3/16/18.

Despite the outcome, HP was substantially justified in opposing the motion, and no monetary sanction is imposed.