GOODEILL, et al. vs RENE J. MARCOTTE, LLC

24CV074839: GOODEILL, et al. vs RENE J. MARCOTTE, LLC 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by CATHERINE GOODEILL (Plaintiff) CRS# 821104537947 in Department 24

Tentative Ruling - 06/10/2026 Rebekah Evenson

The Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by CATHERINE GOODEILL on 03/12/2026 is Granted.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents Set Two, No. 75 is GRANTED, in part, as follows.

Request No. 75 asks for all insurance policies from the years 2018-2024 associated in any way with the subject property. Defendant objected that the request was ambiguous, burdensome, oppressive, harassing, and irrelevant.

The Court determines that the information sought in Request No. 75 falls within the scope of discovery permitted by Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.210.

In his deposition testimony, Defendant’s managing member testified that Defendant had general liability insurance that covers all his properties. Defendant submits a declaration from its insurance broker Larissa May Torkelson Smith who states her “belief and expectation” that there is no coverage for Plaintiffs’ claims under Defendant’s insurance policies. This declaration does not negate the possibility that Defendant’s general liability policy for the property at which Plaintiffs resided “might” cover their claims arising out of the incident. (The Court also observes that Defendant previously filed this same declaration with the Court on January 2, 2026, and the Court did not find it determinative of the issues raised in Plaintiffs’ prior motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, which was granted on January 15, 2026.)

By no later than July 2, 2026, Defendant shall serve a further verified substantive response to Request for Production No. 75, and it shall produce any policies in effect between 2018-2024 providing liability coverage for the property at which Plaintiffs resided.

No monetary sanctions are awarded to anyone. Defendant acted with substantial justification in interpreting Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.210 as only applying to insurance policies that Defendant or its insurance professionals believed would provide coverage for Plaintiffs’ claims. However, the Court does not interpret section 2017.210 so narrowly.