16-CIV-00175 JOSPEH GIARRUSSO, ET AL. VS. ESTATE OF DOROTHY DIEGELMAN, ET AL.

JOSPEH GIARRUSSO ESTATE OF DOROTHY DIEGELMAN
JOSEPH W. CARCIONE PHAIDRA M. GARCIA

MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE OF SUBPOENA ISSUED TO CALIFORNIA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY AND MONETARY SANCTION REQUEST AGAINST DEFENDANT AND/OR DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL OF RECORD BY LUCAS GIARRUSSO, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JOSEPH GIARRUSSO; HANNAH LUCAS GIARRUSSO, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, CAROLINE LUCAS; AND CAROLINE LUCAS TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion of Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants Lucas Giarrusso et. al. to Compel Compliance with Subpoena issued to California Casualty Insurance Co., and for sanctions, is GRANTED-INPART and DENIED-IN-PART.

The motion to compel the deposition and the related document production is GRANTED. The parties shall meet and confer in good faith to decide on a mutually agreeable date, time, and location for the deposition, and a document production prior to the deposition. Discovery rights are broad. Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541. The “relevance to the subject matter” and “reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence” standards are applied liberally; doubts are generally resolved in favor of permitting discovery. Here, the extent of insurance coverage—i.e., whether additional policies exist, is relevant, particularly given the case history in which Defendant apparently provided Plaintiffs with incorrect information regarding the extent of insurance coverage. The Court, however, does not find a waiver of objections. Defendant may assert objections at the deposition, including privilege objections. The parties shall agree on a date for California Casualty to produce the unprivileged, subpoenaed documents prior to the deposition. The Court also notes that discovery rights, although broad, are not unlimited. This is not a bad faith case. While questions directed to the issue of whether any additional insurance policies (such as excess or umbrella policies) exist are relevant, questions about why coverage was denied under the homeowner’s policy, or why the homeowner’s policy was not disclosed sooner, are not relevant. The Court retains the right to sanction any party acting in bad faith with respect to either the scheduling or conduct of the deposition, or the related document production.

Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is DENIED. Under the circumstances, the Court finds Defendant’s arguments were made with substantial justification, and sanctions are not warranted.