STEPHENS v. LAUB LAW PLCC, ET AL.

LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR AUGUST 21, 2026

3. STEPHENS v. LAUB LAW PLCC, ET AL., 25CV1050

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Disclosure of Insurance Information

On June 25, 2026, plaintiff Jon C. Stephens (“plaintiff”) filed a “Motion to Compel

Separate Disclosure of Insurance Information” from defendants Joey Max Laub and Law

Firm of Laub & Laub (collectively, “defendants”). Plaintiff brings the motion under Code

of Civil Procedure sections 2017.2102 and 2017.220.3

Defendants filed no opposition.

On December 26, 2025, plaintiff served defendants a “written insurance demand”

but received no response. The demand states it is made pursuant to Code of Civil

Procedure sections 2017.210 and 2017.220 and requests disclosure within 10 days of

service of the “letter.” (Pltf.’s Decl., Ex. 1.)

On February 10, 2026, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 708.020,

708.110, and 708.030 — each of which relate to discovery for purposes of enforcing a

money judgment — plaintiff requested defendants to disclose various information

within 10 days of the date of the “letter.” (Pltf.’s Decl., Ex. 1.) The second demand

incorrectly states that a judgment has been entered against defendants in this case.

Additionally, plaintiff states, “I am providing you the opportunity to voluntarily disclose

the information below.”

In order to compel disclosure, however, a party must demonstrate that the

responding party has failed to serve a valid response to a valid discovery request — e.g.,

interrogatories and/or request for production (see, Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030, 2031 et

2 Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.210 expressly authorizes a party to “obtain

discovery of the existence and contents of any agreement under which any insurance carrier may be liable to satisfy in whole or in part a judgment that may be entered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.210.) 3 Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.220 authorizes certain discovery in cases alleging

conduct that constitutes sexual harassment, sexual assault, or sexual battery. The statute appears to be inapplicable to the instant case.

LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR AUGUST 21, 2026

seq.). Because plaintiff’s written demands are not an authorized method of discovery

under the Civil Discovery Act (see Code Civ. Proc., § 2019.010), defendants were not

obligated to respond and the motion to compel is denied.

TENTATIVE RULING # 3: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IS DENIED. NO HEARING ON THIS

MATTER WILL BE HELD (LEWIS v. SUPERIOR COURT (1999) 19 CAL.4TH 1232, 1247),

UNLESS A NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAR AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IS

TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE COURT’S WEBSITE OR BY TELEPHONE

TO THE COURT AT (530) 573-3042 BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS

ISSUED. NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF AN INTENT TO APPEAR MUST BE MADE BY

TELEPHONE OR IN PERSON. PROOF OF SERVICE OF SAID NOTICE MUST BE FILED PRIOR

TO OR AT THE HEARING.