2015-00188583-CU-PO

University Management Co. vs. Evergreen Management Co.

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories (Evergreen Management)

Filed By: Radcliffe, Scott E.

** If any party requests oral argument, then at the time the request is made, the requesting party shall inform the court and opposing counsel of the specific issue(s) on which oral argument in sought. **

Plaintiff University Capital Management, Inc.’s (UCMI) motion to compel Defendant Evergreen Management Co. LLC (Evergreen) to serve further responses to its first set of special interrogatories is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

UCMI is a property management company. In the second amended complaint, UCMI alleges that several defendants, including Evergreen, disrupted its property management contracts.

UCMI served the special interrogatories on 10/07/17. Relevant for present purposes are interrogatories aimed at Evergreen’s insurance coverage and interrogatories seeking identification of documents supporting Evergreen’s affirmative defenses.

After receiving two extensions, Evergreen served unverified and incomplete responses to the special interrogatories. Evergreen objected that the interrogatories are duplicative of form interrogatories and therefore harassing. It also objected that the interrogatories seek information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. And it objected to the extent the interrogatories prematurely call for expert disclosures.

Counsel met and conferred unsuccessfully. Trial is set to commence on 5/14/18.

Evergreen’s request for an order directing counsel to resume the meet-and-confer process is denied.

Evergreen’s objections are all overruled with one exception: where interrogatories direct Evergreen to identify bates-stamped documents by author, date and title, Evergreen need only identify them by bates numbers. However, Evergreen must identify by title, date and author (if known) documents that have not been bates-stamped in this case.

With respect to objections based on attorney-client privilege and work product, Evergreen has not established that such protections apply. The interrogatories do not call for production of any documents. UCMI has only asked Evergreen to identify documents. Identification does not reveal the specific contents any document. Moreover, to the extent Evergreen already produced privileged documents, the privileges have been waived.

The court is aware that requiring Evergreen to identify documents supporting a specific defense could give UCMI some insight into its counsel’s view of the case. But such identification does not intrude upon the work product doctrine more than contention interrogatories calling for all facts supporting a particular allegation in a complaint. Such discovery is routine.

The court is not persuaded Evergreen’s objection, that Special Interrogatory No. 3 is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence, has merit. That interrogatory calls for the net amount of coverage remaining on Evergreen’s insurance policies. CCP § 2017.210 governs discovery of insurance information, and it does not expressly indicate that discovery of amounts paid or remaining under a policy are discoverable. That being said, § 2017.210 was intended to provide insight into the availability of insurance coverage, since such availability is “’frequently the controlling factor in determining the manner in which a case is prepared for trial.’” (Catholic Mut. Relief Society v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 358, 373.)

Nothing in this ruling requires Evergreen prematurely to disclose expert materials. The time for expert disclosures is set by statute.

No later than 2/05/18, Evergreen shall serve verified further responses, without objections, to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1-3 and 6-26.

Pursuant to CCP § 2033.300(d), the court imposes a monetary sanction against Evergreen and its counsel, Weintraub Tobin Chediak Coleman Grodin Law Corporation, in the amount of $310 (1 hr @ reasonable rate of $250/hr + $60 filing fee). Some of Evergreen’s opposition was substantially justified, and a greater sanction is unwarranted. Evergreen and its counsel shall pay the sanction no later than Feb. 22, 2018. If Evergreen and its counsel fail to pay the sanction by such date, then UCMI may lodge for the court’s signature a formal order awarding sanctions, which may be enforced as a separate judgment.

Evergreen’s counter-request for a monetary sanction is DENIED.