Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club vs. Smith

what will be needed to try this case. For example, is it the same issue over and over again on each insurance claim that can be streamlined or does every claim present a distinct issue?

The parties have not shown this case involves management of a large number of separately represented parties. There are essentially three plaintiffs represented by a single law firm. Similarly, there are five defendants all represented by the same law firm. This factor would appear not to be present.

The fourth factors—i.e., coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court—is one on which the parties differ. Defendants have filed multiple notices of related cases claiming this case is related to the case pending in Los Angeles, but the Los Angeles Superior Court, as the one with the lower case number, is the one to make the related case determination (or whether to reach out and discuss issues) and that court has declined to deem the cases related. Moreover, Defendants insist this case will be coordinated with the Los Angeles case, but Defendants have failed to show any steps have been taken to make that occur in the one year that has elapsed since this case was unsealed.

Finally, as to whether substantial postjudgment judicial supervision will be necessary, the parties again have made no specific showing. Counsel should appear at the hearing to provide any update regarding the status of the Los Angeles case, and much more specific information relating to the necessary factors for this case to be deemed complex.

15. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club vs. Smith 2026-01556853 Before the court is the motion filed on June 8, 2026 (and re-filed on June 16, 2026), by petitioner Interinsurance Exchange of The Automobile Club (Petitioner) to “Obtain Cellular Phone Records From Verizon Or Alternatively, To Enforce Deposition Subpoena.” As more fully set forth below, the motion is GRANTED.

The Motion seeks an order compelling Verizon to release specific cell phone records to Petitioner for the cell phone of Respondent Charles Smith (Smith) pursuant to subpoena and a signed release of records. The motion appears to have been timely filed and duly served. Neither Smith nor Verizon has filed an opposition to the motion. In addition, Petitioner represents the subscriber for the cell phone number at issue is Felicia Burns, and

Ms. Burns provided an express release for the records at issue as reflected in Exhibit B. Under the stated circumstances, the motion is GRANTED as to the request to require Verizon to comply with the subpoena at issue. Verizon is to be served with notice of this ruling, and it shall have 20 days thereafter to comply. Counsel for Petitioner is to give notice of this ruling.