Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Admissions
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
24CV017830: BIBB vs PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION 06/05/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Admissions in Department 54
Tentative Ruling
Plaintiff James Bibbs (Plaintiff) motion to compel defendant Progressive Direct Insurance Company (Defendant) to serve verified further responses to Plaintiffs Requests for Admissions, Set One (RFAs) is ruled upon as follows.
This is an insurance bad faith action arising out of an insurance claim Plaintiff made to Defendant. On July 4, 2024, Plaintiffs boat and trailer were stolen. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff discovered the loss and made an insurance claim to Defendant.
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on September 6, 2024, alleging cause of action for breach of contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200.
Plaintiff served the at-issue RFAs on November 13, 2024. (Declaration of Jason R. Bendel (Bendel Decl.) ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Defendant served response on December 17, 2024, which contain objections. (Bendel Decl. ¶ 4, Ex.C.)
Plaintiff then met and conferred with Defendant, during which defense counsel asserted the position that Defendant did not have to respond to discovery because the insurance claim investigation was ongoing, but also acknowledged the lack of authority for this position. (Bendel Decl. ¶ 5.)
By this motion, Plaintiff seeks verified further responses to RFAs 2-5.
In response to the RFAs, Defendant stated, We are engaged in a reasonable inquiry to obtain sufficient information to respond to this request; the information readily obtainable is insufficient to enable us to admit this matter.
(See Separate Statement at pp. 2-5.)
Plaintiff contends the responses are not Code complaint because they do not admit, deny, or state that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter has been made and the information known or readily obtaining in insufficient to enable the party to admit the matter.
Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220 states:
(a) Each answer in a response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.
24CV017830: BIBB vs PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION 06/05/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Admissions in Department 54
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
(b) Each answer shall:
(1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party.
(2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue.
(3) Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.
(c) If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.
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, Plaintiffs 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.
Plaintiffs 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.
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 Request for Admissions in Department 54
The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Courts tentative ruling system as 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 Courts 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
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 Request for Admissions in Department 54
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 Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.