2015-00173977-CU-WT

Mary Rossi vs. Farmers Insurance

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories

Filed By: Whelan, Christopher H.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Farmers Insurance Exchange to provide Further Answers to Special Interrogatories (Set Three) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The request for imposition of sanctions is denied, as both parties positions are substantially justified. Code Civil Procedure sections 2030.300(d), 2023.030(a).

On November 27, 2017, Plaintiff personally served her Special Interrogatories, Set Three on Defendant, which included forty-two interrogatories (Nos. 10-52).

On Dec. 27, 2017, plaintiff granted defendant’s request for an extension of time to respond by Jan. 5, 2018. On Jan. 4, 2018, defendant requested an additional extension in which to respond to Jan. 15, 2018, due to the intervening holiday and due to other discovery requests. Due to the impending discovery cut off of March 29, 2018, the plaintiff refused.

On Dec. 28, 2017, the Presiding Judge granted the Defendant’s motion to continue the trial. The January 17, 2018 MSC and February 26, 2018 trial dates were vacated. Trial is now scheduled for May 1, 2018, and a Mandatory Settlement Conference set for March 22, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. Further, the Court ordered that all statutory deadlines, including discovery and expert discovery, shall be governed by the new trial date.

On Jan. 5, 2018, defendant served responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Three, to preserve its objections.

On Jan. 8, 2018 plaintiff served a 246 page meet and confer letter, (which appears to the Court to be a draft Separate Statement) and demanded further responses by Jan. 16, 2018.

On Jan. 16, 2018, defendant again requested additional time in which to answer, as it was still working on the further responses.

On Jan. 29, 2018 this motion to compel was filed.

On March 8, 2018, defendant served its further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set 3, nos. 10-35 and 39-52.

Defendant objects that the meet and confer was inadequate as the letter was too lengthy, and additional time in which to respond was not granted. The Court finds the meet and confer to be sufficient under the circumstances.

Defendant served no further responses to nos. 36-38, as each of those interrogatories sought information regarding defendant’s “legal review” of the test questions at issue in this action. Defendant rests upon its initial assertion of the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrines. (Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 501.)

The Court concludes that, based on the assertion of privilege, no further responses are required to nos. 36-38, therefore the motion to compel is DENIED.

Although the reply brief characterizes defendant’s opposition with late served responses as a “moot maneuver”, the Court notes that plaintiff refused to grant an additional reasonable extension of time in which defendant could answer. The discovery cutoff date of March 29, based on the new trial date of May 1, 2018, should not have precluded a further extension of time in which to respond.

While this Court does not condone late served responses to “moot” a motion to compel, neither does it endorse plaintiff’s refusal to grant a reasonable extension of time in which defendant may provide further responses. Here, plaintiff only granted an extension of time of six working days (between Dec. 27 and Jan. 5) and ignored or refused requests for extensions of time to Jan. 15 or 23, 2018. The court recognizes the existence of the Standards of Professional Conduct, adopted by the Sacramento County Bar Association, including that an attorney should agree to reasonable requests for extensions of time that are not adverse to a client’s interests.

If plaintiff has not received the defendant’s further responses to Nos. 10-35 and 39-52, the Court orders defendant to serve them by personal delivery not later than Monday, March 26, 2018.

Sanctions are denied as both parties’ positions are substantially justified.