2011-00110427-CU-PO

Trina Medina vs. Lilian Penton

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Quash or Modify Deposition Subpoenas

Filed By: Lawley, Elizabeth W.

Defendants’ motion to quash or modify plaintiffs’ three identical deposition subpoenas
for personal appearance with production of documents is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part, as follows.

Moving counsel is admonished for failing to comply with CRC Rule 3.1110(b)(3).

Opposing is admonished for failing to comply with CRC Rule 3.1110(b)(4).

At the outset, the Court finds that the parties could have and should have been able to
resolve this dispute without the need for a formal motion. Both counsel are reminded
that this Court does not have the resources to tend to and resolve every discovery
dispute which could have and should have been resolved via the meet-and-confer
process. Both counsel are expected to exhaust all reasonable meet-and-confer efforts
before filing any discovery motion and are advised that any unnecessary discovery
motions and/or oppositions filed in the future may be subject to the imposition of
sanctions.

This action arises out of plaintiffs’ rental of defendants’ property located at 4635
Forrester Way in Antelope, California (“Rental Property”) from August 2009 through
June 2010. In short, plaintiffs allege various injuries and damages as a result of
exposure to mold in the Rental Property. Trial is currently set for 11/5/2013. At issue here are three identical deposition subpoenas for personal appearance with
production of documents issued by plaintiffs to (1) Person Most Knowledgeable
(“PMK”) for QBE First Insurance Agency, (2) PMK for Banc of America Insurance
Services and (3) Nancy Bransford, seeking the following:

Copies of all insurance policies, including but not limited to primary or excess
coverage and including but not limited to all declaration sheets, policy
provisions, exclusions and definitions, which in effect from January 2009 to the
present for the Rental Property and for the property located at 4632 Forrester
Way (“Defendants’ Residence”).

Defendants now move to quash or modify these subpoenas on the ground that Code
of Civil Procedure §2017.210 expressly limits plaintiffs’ ability to obtain discovery of
defendants’ insurance to the existence and contents of policies under which an insurer
may be liable to satisfy in whole or part a judgment, the identity of the insurer, the
nature and extent of coverage and whether the insurer is disputing coverage
thereunder but not as to the nature or substance of that dispute. Thus, defendants
effectively concede plaintiffs are entitled to copies of the insurance policies but
maintain they are not entitled to other documents such as reservation of rights letters
or any communications between the insurer and defendants or their counsel.

Additionally, defendants contend plaintiffs that while plaintiffs are entitled to policies
relating to the Rental Property, they are not entitled to discovery of any policies relating
to Defendants’ Residence since plaintiffs themselves never resided there and since
this insurance would have no legal relevance to any of the issues raised by plaintiffs’
claims.

Finally, since discovery of insurance is statutorily limited to the information identified in
Code of Civil Procedure §2017.210 and since all this discoverable information can be
gathered from the policy documents themselves, defendants insist that plaintiffs’
demand for the personal appearance of the two PMKs and Ms. Bransford not only is
unwarranted but also constitutes improper harassment of the witnesses and
defendants.

The opposition argues the motion should be denied because plaintiffs are entitled to
obtain discovery of all insurance policies which may cover their claims, the coverage
limits and the extent of coverage afforded. Plaintiffs also admit they are not seeking
any of defendants’ insurance applications or other private financial information but
rather, only their insurance policies and the contents thereof. (Oppos., p.5:12-14.) The
opposition contends that the insurance on Defendants’ Residence is discoverable
because it may provide coverage for plaintiffs’ claims which do not arise solely from
the rental agreement or the conditions of the Rental Property.

The Court holds that plaintiffs are entitled to obtain discovery of only the insurance
policy documents, including declaration pages and any additional endorsements or
exclusions, along with the existence of any reservation of rights but they are not
entitled to discover the nature of any coverage disputes or any communications
between the insurer and the insureds or their counsel. The mere fact some of the
insurance documents relating to the Rental Property may have been produced
previously is of little consequence under the circumstances here. Because plaintiffs
concede they are not seeking any insurance applications or other private financial
information, such documents need not be produced.

The Court finds that plaintiffs are entitled to the insurance policy documents relating to
Defendants’ Residence as such insurance may indeed provide coverage for some or
all of the claims asserted here. Thus, such information is at least discoverable subject,
of course, to the same limitations identified in the preceding paragraph.

However, in light of the express limitations found in Code of Civil Procedure
§2017.210, the Court finds that none of the deponents identified in plaintiffs’ three
subpoenas shall be required to make a personal appearance. Plaintiffs should be able
to obtain all relevant discoverable insurance information relating to both the Rental
Property and Defendants’ Residence from the insurance policy documents themselves
without the necessity of live testimony which would in all likelihood exceed the limited
scope of discovery permitted under §2017.210.

The Court declines to award monetary sanctions, which were requested by both sides,
since neither the motion nor the opposition was substantially unjustified.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required.
(Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)