BIBB vs PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY

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.

TENTATIVE RULING

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017830: BIBB vs PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION 08/12/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for an Award of Issue in Department 8C

THIS NEW LOCATION***

Plaintiff James Bibb’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for an award of issue and/or evidentiary sanctions and monetary sanctions against Defendant Progressive Direct Insurance Company (“Defendant”) and its counsel to appear is ruled upon as follows.

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an insurance bad faith lawsuit arising out of an insurance claim made Plaintiff to Defendant.

On November 13, 2024, Plaintiff served Defendant with Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents (“RFPs”). (Declaration of Jason R. Bendel (“Bendel Decl.”), ¶ 3) On December 17, 2024, Defendant served its response to the RFPs. Plaintiff’s Responses to RFPs contain what appear to be boilerplate objections. (Bendel Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. A)

On February 4, 2025, Plaintiff brought a motion to compel verified discovery responses and the production of responsive documents. (Bendel Decl., ¶ 5) On June 5, 2025, the Court Ordered Defendant to serve supplemental responses by June 19, 2025. The Court also awarded monetary sanctions against Defendant and its counsel in the amount of $1,210.00. (Bendel Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. B) Defendant was also sanctioned for failure to provide proper responses to Requests for Admission, Form Interrogatories, and Special Interrogatories.

On June 19, 2025, Defendant provided supplemental responses and produced hundreds of pages of documents, including documents from Defendant’s claim file for the insurance claim at issue in this matter. (Bendel Decl., ¶ 7)

On June 17, 2026, Plaintiff’s counsel was taking the deposition of Progressive employee, Jordan Martin, who was the primary claims handler on the insurance claim at issue in this matter. (Bendel Decl., ¶ 8) While Mr. Martin was testifying regarding the claim and looking at the insurance claim notes, Plaintiff’s counsel contends it became apparent that Defendant had not produced the entirety of the claim notes from the claim

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017830: BIBB vs PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION 08/12/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for an Award of Issue in Department 8C

file. (Bendel Decl., ¶ 8.) Specifically, Mr. Martin testified that he recalled “round tabling” the decision to deny the claim with several other Progressive employees. The outcome of the roundtable and decisions to deny the claim are something that Plaintiff’s counsel believed should be reflected in the claim file. However, while the claim was denied on February 24, 2025, Defendant did not produce any claim notes on or around February 24, 2025 reflecting the roundtable or any other claim notes reflecting the decision to deny the claim or the reasons for denying the claim. (Bendel Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. C)

Plaintiff’s counsel met and conferred with Defendant’s counsel during the deposition of Jordan Martin on June 17, 2026 regarding Defendant’s failure to produce the documents, pointing out that the claim notes that included the reasons for denying the claim were not produced. (Bendel Decl., ¶ 8.) Defendant’s counsel represented to Plaintiff’s counsel that all documents had been produced, including the roundtable in question. (Id.)

Plaintiff’s counsel met and conferred with Defendant’s counsel again on June 23, 2026, just prior to filing this Motion, regarding the failure of Defendant to produce the entire claim notes, including the claim notes reflecting the roundtable where the decision was made to deny the claim. (Bendel Decl., ¶ 9) Plaintiff’s counsel pointed out that Defendant’s failure to produce the documents was in direct violation of court order. (Id.) Defendant’s counsel again insisted that all the non privileged documents from the claim file had been produced, including the claim note reflecting the roundtable we had discussed at the deposition of Jordan Martin. (Id.)

Plaintiff then filed the instant motion for sanctions on June 23, 2026.

In opposition to the motion, defense counsel states:

On June 17, 2026, during the course of Jordan Martin's deposition, Plaintiff's counsel asserted that the claim notes that had been produced by Defendant were not complete, because they didn't address a 'round table' at which my client discussed further handling of the claim with respect to an examination under oath.

I insisted they were complete. I pointed out to Plaintiff’s counsel

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017830: BIBB vs PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION 08/12/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for an Award of Issue in Department 8C

the page on which the 'RT' was noted in the notes that were in front of him. I explained the 'RT' referred to the round table. Not until temporary adjournment of the deposition did I review the further document production I had made a year previously and compare it with the claim notes. At that point, I realized that Plaintiff’s counsel had been correct; he had not received everything. At which point, on July 1, 2026, I provided him with a complete copy of the claim notes, and specifically my client's denial decision of February 2, 2025.

(Smith Decl., ¶¶ 12-13. [Emphasis Added.])

Legal Standard

For misuse of the discovery process, including disobeying a court order to provide discovery, the Court may impose issue, evidence, terminating, or monetary sanctions. (See Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2023.010, subds. (d) and (g), 2023.030, subds. (a)- (d).) The Court has broad discretion in the selection of the appropriate sanction to be applied under the factual circumstances. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 991-992.) The Court may impose sanctions that are suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks, but the Court may not impose sanctions which are designed not to accomplish the objects of the discovery but to impose punishment. (Caryl Richards, Inc. v.

Superior Court (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 300, 304.) “The penalty should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 793.) Sanctions are generally imposed in an incremental approach, with terminating sanctions being a last resort. (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.)

Discussion

As a preliminary matter, it is important to note the scope of Plaintiff’s present motion. A motion is made at the time of its filing. The Court will not consider further documents that were served after the filing of the motion. As a result, Defendant’s assertion that Defendant has now complied is irrelevant to the instant motion.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017830: BIBB vs PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION 08/12/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for an Award of Issue in Department 8C

Defendant concedes that their production prior to the filing of this motion was deficient, even after Plaintiff had to bring a previous motion to compel further responses to these RFPs. (Decl. Smith, ¶ 13; June 5, 2025 Order.)

Plaintiff seek issue and/or evidentiary sanctions and monetary sanctions for Defendant’s failure to produce all responsive documents, even after Plaintiff explained to defense counsel that the production was incomplete and met and conferred regarding a full production. Defense counsel still, in his own words, “insisted they were complete” causing Plaintiff to pause the deposition of Defendant’s representative and bring the instant motion.

It was only after this motion was filed that Defendant admitted there were further responsive documents. Taking defense counsel at his word that the failure to produce these additional documents was not “willful” does not change the fact that Plaintiff made to bring a motion to compel further responses to the RFPs to receive an agreement to comply from Defendant, and had to bring the instant motion to get Defendant to adequately review his files and make a further production of missing responsive documents. Defendant does not point to legal authority to support that this set of facts supports a denial of Plaintiff’s motion.

However, the Court finds that issue and/or evidentiary sanctions would be unnecessarily punitive in nature at this time, and that an incremental approach, imposing further monetary sanctions, would more appropriately address the facts herein.

Plaintiff’s motion for issue and/or evidentiary sanctions is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $6,385 for 11 hours of attorney time at the rate of $575 per hour and the $60 filing fee against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel of record is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).) Sanctions in the amount of $6,385 to be paid by no later than September 9, 2026, 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.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017830: BIBB vs PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION 08/12/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for an Award of Issue in Department 8C

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)