BIBB vs PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION

“Objection; given the pendency of Defendant’s investigation, this discovery is so unduly burdensome as to constitute oppression. It also violates Defendant’s right to privacy in the conduct of investigations authorized by the California Insurance Code. It also seeks privileged information arising from Defendant’s protected activity in furtherance of Defendant’s right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue. It also violates the attorney-client and work product privileges.”

(See Separate Statement at pp. 3-8.)

Plaintiff contends the objections lack merit because the information sought is not protected by the right to privacy or privileged.

Defendant has filed an opposition, which is mostly comprised of an irrelevant discussion of whether this action is subject to a special motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 – a motion that has not been filed by Defendant. (Opposition at pp. 3-7.) Defendant seems to concede the irrelevance of this entire discussion via the conclusion, which states “All of which is a compelling argument for an Anti-SLAPP motion under C.C.P. §425.16. Which this is not. This is an opposition to discovery enforcement motions.” (Opposition at 8:2-3.)

Apart from this wholly inapposite discussion of section 425.16 standards, and whether or not such a motion would succeed, Defendant does not set forth any sound legal reasoning that would justify its refusal to respond to the discovery and even submits that it will supplement its responses. (Opposition at 2:5-6.) Having failed to set forth any legal authority justifying its objections and agreeing to supplement, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED in its entirety.

Defendant shall serve verified further responses to the subject discovery no later than June 19, 2025, unless the parties mutually agree in writing upon a later date.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,360 is GRANTED, but in the reduced amount of $1,210 (representing two hours of attorney time at the rate of $575 per hour, plus the $60 filing fee). Sanctions to be paid no later than July 5, 2025, and, if not paid by that date, Plaintiff may prepare for the Court's signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may then be enforced as a separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017830: BIBB vs PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION 06/05/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories in Department 54

required by Local Rule 1.06(D).Plaintiff is ordered to notify Defendant immediately of the tentative ruling system and the manner to request a hearing. If Plaintiff is unable to contact Defendant prior to hearing, Plaintiff is ordered to appear at the hearing.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, or further notice is required.

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017830: BIBB vs PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION 06/05/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories in Department 54