| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Motion to Compel Further Discovery
sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages based on malicious, fraudulent or oppressive conduct.
BLUE HILL CASUAL TY INSURANCE COMPANY MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY Date of Hearing: May 18, 2026 Trial Date: None set Department: 529 Case No.: 26STCV05895 Moving Party: Petitioner Kang Hyun Kim Responding Party: Respondent Blue Hill Specialty Insurance Company Meet and Confer: Yes. Mouradyan Decl. BACKGROUND On February 20, 2026, Petitioner Kang Kim filed a Petition to Assign Case Number for Purpose of Discovery Motions against Blue Hill Casualty Insurance Company. [Tentative] Ruling Petitioner’ s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One is DENIED.
DISCUSSION Petitioner Kang Hyun Kim moves this court for an order compelling Respondent Blue Hill Specialty Insurance Company to provide further verified response without objection to Special Interrogatory (Set One) Nos. 6, 7, 83? 164 and 180? 184 within 20 days. Petitioner makes the motion on the grounds that Respondent has failed to provide complete and code compliant responses to the Special Interrogatories and these interrogatories are relevant to the subject matter of this action. Petitioner also seeks an order from this court imposing monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,635.00 to be imposed jointly and severally against Respondent and their counsel of record, McNeil Tropp & Braun LLP.
A motion to compel further responses to form or specially prepared interrogatories may be brought if the responses contain: (1) answers that are evasive or incomplete; (2) an unwarranted or insufficiently specific exercise of an option to produce documents in lieu of a substantive response; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (CCP § 2030.300(a).) Petitioner argues Respondent’s responses to Special Interrogatories 6, 7, 83 through 164, and 180 through 184 fail to provide the sought after information.
For example, Respondent fails to set forth who contributed to the subject incident, has not provided any substantive explanation for their position regarding the need for future medical care, or even respond to straightforward and clear questions as required by the Insurance Code. In
opposition, Respondent first argues the motion contains false information. Respondent contends there is no interrogatory asking Respondent to identify all persons who Responding Party contends contributed to the subject incident. Moreover, the memorandum fails to identify the factual and legal reasoning necessary to grant this motion and the separate statement is defective as there is no separate, single argument for each of the responses. Lastly, Respondent argues the interrogatories at issue do not require further response because the responses are code compliant.
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?”
The court finds this motion is not well taken. Although the court disagrees with the defendant’s procedural and technical objections to the presentation of the motion, the court agrees with the substance of the opposition. Many of the requests either call for a legal conclusion or assume facts not in evidence. For the most part they are contention interrogatories that are improperly formulated. As presented, they are nearly incomprehensible, assume facts not in evidence, or call for speculation.
If the question is formulated, “If you contend that plaintiff suffered no emotional distress as a result of this incident, state all facts which support this contention,” the question might require a response. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’ s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One is DENIED. Sanction Petitioner seeks $1,575.00 in monetary sanctions. Respondent also seeks sanctions against Petitioner and his counsel of record in the amount of $1,635.00. The court DENIES both requests for sanctions, as it finds both parties lack substantial justification as to why they did not resolve these issues through the meet and confer process.
Home -->)" -->