&l2A NOTICE To request a hearing on any matter on this¨ calendar, you must call the Court at (916) 874-7848¨ (Department 54) by 4:00 p.m. today. Local rule 31(h). If¨ no call is made the tentative ruling becomes the order of¨ the court. TENTATIVE RULINGS Department 54 Superior Court of California 800 Ninth Street, 3rd Floor THOMAS M. CECIL, Judge R. ROUSE, Clerk V. CARROLL, Bailiff April 25, 2005, 09:00 ITEM 1 02AS06066 MARY SPOTT VS. UNITED RENTALS, ET AL č Nature of Proceeding: MOT TO COMPEL PROD UCD Filed By: WORKMAN, ROBIN G. Dropped. *** ITEM 2 02AS06066 MARY SPOTT, VS. UNITED RENTALS, A CORP, ET AL. Nature of Proceeding: MT TO COMP PROD OF PEASLEYS RC Filed By: WORKMAN, ROBIN G. Dropped. *** ITEM 3 02AS06066 MARY SPOTT, VS. UNITED RENTALS, A CORP., ET AL. Nature of Proceeding: MT TO COMP PROD OF FALL CREEK Filed By: WORKMAN, ROBIN G. Dropped. Department 54 April 25, 2005 Page 2 ______________ *** ITEM 4 02AS06066 MARY SPOTT, VS. UNITED RENTALS., A CORP. ET AL. Nature of Proceeding: MT TO COMP PMT OF SNCTNS Filed By: WORKMAN, ROBIN G. The motion is denied. See Newland v Superior Court (1995) 40 C.A.4th 608. This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order is needed, C.R.C. rule 391, nor is further notice of this ruling required; C.C.P.  1019.5. c *** ITEM 5 02AS06066 MARY SPOTT, VS. UNITED RENTALS, A CORP., ET AL. Nature of Proceeding: MT TO COMP SS ADM TO REL REC Filed By: WORKMAN, ROBIN G. Dropped. In response to the motion, plaintiff is providing her authorization to the SSA, which will produce a copy of the records to the defendant. To that extent, the motion is granted. If she has not already done so, plaintiff is to provide defendant with a copy of the authorization sent to the SSA no later than Monday, April 25, 2005. This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order is needed, C.R.C. rule 391, nor is further notice of this ruling required; C.C.P.  1019.5. c Department 54 April 25, 2005 Page 3 ______________ *** ITEM 6 02AS06066 MARY SPOTT, VS. UNITED RENTALS, A CORP., ET AL. Nature of Proceeding: MT TO COMP PROD OF DOC SS ADM Filed By: WORKMAN, ROBIN G. Dropped. The motion is dropped as moot due to the ruling on the motion to compel plaintiff to execute an authorization. *** ITEM 7 02AS06328 SUPERIOR VINYL AND LEATHER REPAIR, INC. VS. RON GARRISON Nature of Proceeding: Motion To Compel Filed By: MELTON, DAVID A. Defendant's motion is granted, in part; opposition was not received by the Court. Plaintiff Superior Vinyl and Leather Repair, Inc. is ordered to serve verified responses and answers to defendant Garrison's Request for Production of Documents, set two; Supplemental Request for Production of Documents, set one; and Supplemental Interrogatories, set one. Plaintiff is also ordered to serve verifications to its prior responses and answers to defendant's Request for Production of Documents, set one; and Form and Special Interrogatories, sets one. Finally, Plaintiff is ordered to produce the documents it stated it would produce in its response to defendant's Request for Production of Documents, set one. The responses, answers, verifications and documents are to be served and produced no later than Thursday, May 5, 2005. The request for a monetary sanction is denied as the motion is unopposed. This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order is needed, C.R.C. rule 391, nor is further notice of this ruling required; C.C.P.  1019.5. c Department 54 April 25, 2005 Page 4 ______________ *** ITEM 8 02AS07516 PEOPLE, ET AL VS. GRAND TOBACCO COMPANY, LTD. Nature of Proceeding: Motion To Quash Service Summon Filed By: KHACHADOURIAN, GILBERT The motion to quash the service of summons is denied. Based on the evidence presented by the People, there is sufficient basis to establish jurisdiction over defendant Grand Tobacco Company, Ltd. See declaration of Peter M. Williams, including exhibits A-L. The Court notes that exhibits B and D show three importers of Grand Tobacco cigarettes, one located in New York and two located in California, i.e., Glendale and Los Angeles. Furthermore, even if, as defendant argues, it only sells its product to a New York importer, it cannot expect to insulate itself from personal jurisdiction by that fact alone. Regie Nationale Des Usines Renault v Superior Court (1962) 208 C.A.2d 702, Tobin v Astra Pharm. Products, Inc. (1993) 993 F.2d 528. The motion to set aside the default and default judgment is granted. The evidence discloses that the People served defendant with the summons and complaint, addressed to the President of Grand Tobacco, Hrant Vardanyan. A first amended complaint was filed and also served, addressed to Gayane Matevosyan, director for Grand Tobacco, and Hrant Vardanyan. An amended summons and complaint was also served again, addressed to Hrant Vardanian. In each instance, a receipt was signed showing the documents had been received. Mikael Varkanyan, Vice President of Grand Tobacco, states Grand Tobacco never received the summons or Complaint. He states he reviewed the copies of the return receipts and the signatures and they are not familiar to him. C.C.P. 415.40 allows a summons to be served on a person outside California by sending a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the person to be served by first-class mail, postage prepaid, requiring a return receipt. The section was complied with by the People. There is no requirement that the person to be served also sign the return receipt. However there is no evidence that the person who signed the receipt was authorized to receive process for the company. Moreover, even if the process was properly served, the evidence is that the company did not receive actual notice in time to defend the action. Defendant to file and serve its answer no later than Friday, April 29, 2005. This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order is needed, C.R.C. rule 391, nor is further notice of this ruling required; C.C.P.  1019.5. c Department 54 April 25, 2005 Page 5 ______________ *** ITEM 9 02AS07516 STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS. GRAND TOBACCO, ET AL. Nature of Proceeding: MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT Filed By: KHACHADOURIAN, GILBERT See ruling in item#8. *** ITEM 10 03AS05144 AL VAITUULALA, ET AL VS. JACK BROWN, ET AL Nature of Proceeding: Writ of Possession Hearing Filed By: SWICKARD, AARON L. The application is denied; plaintiff fails to show his claim is probably valid. See declaration of Brown. This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order is needed, C.R.C. rule 391, nor is further notice of this ruling required; C.C.P.  1019.5. c *** ITEM 11 03AS05678 KELLI P. BENEDICT, ET AL VS. DAVID D. JOHNSON, ET AL Nature of Proceeding: Motion To Compel Filed By: CAMPBELL, MARK A. Defendant David D. Johnson's motion is granted, in part; opposition was not received by the Court. Plaintiffs Kelli Benedict and Steve Benedict are ordered to serve verified answers and responses, without objections, to defendant Johnson's Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, sets one, no later than Thursday, May 5, 2005. The request for a monetary sanction is denied as the motion is unopposed. This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order is needed, C.R.C. rule 391, nor is further notice of this ruling required; C.C.P.  1019.5. c Department 54 April 25, 2005 Page 6 ______________ *** ITEM 12 03AS06872 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO VS. JEROME H. SPRAGUE, ET AL Nature of Proceeding: Motion To Compel Filed By: RIM, JENNY J. Cross-defendant SMUD's motion is granted, in part; opposition was not received by the Court. Cross-complainant Jerome H. Sprague is ordered to serve further, verified answers and responses to cross-defendant SMUD's Special Interrogatories, set one, ##1-19 and Requests for Production of Documents, set one, ##1-6, no later than Thursday, May 5, 2005. The request for a monetary sanction is denied as the motion is unopposed. This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order is needed, C.R.C. rule 391, nor is further notice of this ruling required; C.C.P.  1019.5. c *** ITEM 13 04AS00750 CAROL KENNEDY VS. MARIE THERESA NUNEZ, ET AL Nature of Proceeding: Motion To Compel Filed By: CLINE, STEPHEN G. Plaintiff's motion is granted, in part; opposition was not received by the Court. Defendant Nunez is ordered to serve verified answers, without objections, to Plaintiff Kennedy's Special Interrogatories, no later than Monday, May 9th, 2005. The request for a monetary sanction is denied as the motion is unopposed. This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order is needed, C.R.C. rule 391. Plaintiff to serve defendant with notice of the Court's ruling no later than Monday, April 25, 2005. C.C.P. 1019.5. c Department 54 April 25, 2005 Page 7 ______________ *** ITEM 14 04AS02091 WADE CASEY, ET AL VS. MING TAM, ET AL Nature of Proceeding: Motion To Strike Filed By: LONG, JEFFERY The motion to strike paragraph 9 and the prayer for punitive damages is granted. The allegations do not properly allege malice, oppression or fraud. Opposition was not received by the court. The motion to strike is therefore granted without leave to amend. This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order is needed, C.R.C. rule 391. Defendant to serve plaintiffs with notice of the Court's ruling no later than Monday, April 25, 2005. C.P. 1019.5. c *** ITEM 15 04AS02692 MARIE K. DORRIES VS. ROLAND A. VAN UDEN, ET AL Nature of Proceeding: Filed By: Hearing vacated per minute order of March 24, 2005 Department 54, Judge Cecil. *** Department 54 April 25, 2005 Page 8 ______________ ITEM 16 04AS02720 CAROL GORDON VS. CHERYL RICHARDS Nature of Proceeding: MOTION TO QUASH OR LIMIT SUBPOENA Filed By: MERRILL, C. CHRISTOPHER Defendant has a right of privacy in her financial affairs, papers and documents. That right however is not absolute but must sometimes yield to the right of a party to obtain information that is relevant and material to the matters at issue in this litigation. The motion is denied; the court does not find the subpoenas to be overbroad, oppressive, unreasonable or issued to cause defendant to suffer unwarranted embarassment and annoyance. See declarations of Gordon and Richards. This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order is needed, C.R.C. rule 391, nor is further notice of this ruling required; C.C.P.  1019.5. c *** ITEM 17 04AS02730 NOU VANG, ET AL VS. ORFANEL SOLANO Nature of Proceeding: Motion For Reconsideration Filed By: SAMAAN, NABIL Transferred to department 14. Please call 874-6156 for information. *** ITEM 18 04AS04934 ROSANN FALLOON VS. LEONARD W. BLOK, III Nature of Proceeding: Demurrer Filed By: HAYCOCK, D. JACK Defendant Blok III demurs to the complaint on the ground it fails to state a cause of action because it shows on its face it is barred by the statute of limitations of C.C.P. Section 340.6. Plaintiff alleges she retained and employed Blok to represent her on January 12, 1993 and that at all times thereafter defendant failed to exercise reasonable care and skill in performing legal services for plaintiff. No other dates are mentioned, such as the date of the wrongful act or omission. Without such an allegation, it is not possible to determine, from the face of the complaint, when the statute of limitations began to run. As this is the only ground of the demurrer, it is overruled. Defendant to file and serve his answer no later than Thursday, May 5, 2005. This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order is needed, C.R.C. rule 391. Defendant to serve plaintiff with notice of the Court's ruling no later than Monday, April 25, 2005. C.C.P. 1019.5. c Department 54 April 25, 2005 Page 9 ______________ *** ITEM 19 04AS05030 ROBERT M. RAWLINGS, ET AL VS. CLIFF Nature of Proceeding: Demurrer Filed By: WILKINSON, SUSAN L. Plaintiffs Robert M. Rawlings and Eugene Isaacson's demurrer to the answer is dropped as moot. Defendants filed a First Amended Answer. *** ITEM 20 05AS00214 WILLIAM C. HOWARD VS. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC. Nature of Proceeding: Demurrer Filed By: HICKLIN, STEPHEN T. Defendant Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. demurs to the complaint. Defendant states the complaint served on it consists of two pages of form pleading and attachments. The complaint filed with the Court consists solely of a two page form pleading. The complaint, page two, states four causes of action are attached: they are not. The general and special demurrers to the complaint are sustained with leave to amend for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute causes of action and on the ground of uncertainty. Plaintiff to file and serve a first amended complaint no later than Monday, May 9, 2005. Defendant to respond no later than Monday, May 23, 2005. This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order is needed, C.R.C. rule 391. Defendant to serve plaintiff with notice of the Court's ruling no later than Monday, April 25, 2005. C.C.P. 1019.5. c Department 54 April 25, 2005 Page 10 ______________ *** ITEM 21 05AS01564 KEVIN MELDER, ET AL VS. SHERRY NOTTINGHAN Nature of Proceeding: Preliminary Injunction Filed By: FINELLI, STEPHANIE J. Appearance Required. *** ITEM 22 05CS00140 IN RE: JULIAN JOSEPH NAVARRETTE Nature of Proceeding: Motion For Reconsideration Filed By: BRADFORD, MARK D. Appearance required. *** ITEM 23 CV527932 AEROJET-GENERAL CORP. VS. FIDELITY & CASUALTY CO., ET AL Nature of Proceeding: Motion To Compel Filed By: BLUMENSTEIN, CARL L. Continued to 05/05/2005 *** ITEM 24 CV527932 AEROJET-GENERAL CORPORATION, VS. FIDELITY & CASUALTY CO. Nature of Proceeding: MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Filed By: LEE, KARINA J. The motion of plaintiff Aerojet-General Corporation ("Aerojet") pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030(c) and(e) for a protective order permitting Aerojet not to respond to defendant Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York ("Fidelity") and Continental Casualty Company's Fifteenth, Sixteenth, and Seventeenth Sets of Special Interrogatories is denied. This minute order is immediately effective. A formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 391 is not necessary, and further notice of this ruling is not required. Department 54 April 25, 2005 Page 11 ______________ *** ITEM 25 CV527932 AEROJET-GENERAL CORPORATION VS. FIDELITY & CASUALTY CO., Nature of Proceeding: MT TO COMPEL RESP SET 2 SP ROG Filed By: LEE, KATRINA J. The motion of plaintiff Aerojet-General Corporation ("Aerojet") pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030(l) and 2031(m) for an order compelling defendant Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York ("Fidelity") to provide further responses to Aerojet's Second Set of Special Interrogatories, Nos. 34-45, 47-64, and 66-80; further responses to Aerojet's Fifth Request for Production of Documents, Request No. 1; and further responses to Aerojet's Fifth Set of Form Interrogatories, No. 17.1, is granted as set forth below. (The court notes that Aerojet's notice of motion does not include Special Interrogatory Nos. 34, 35, 46, and 65, but that its separate statement under CRC 335 does include those four interrogatories. Since Aerojet's notice and points and authorities do not request further responses as to those four interrogatories, the motion has been accordingly interpreted.) The general and primary subject matter of the discovery at issue upon this motion is a "compilation" of approximately 1725 specific line item costs allegedly incurred by Aerojet between 1999 and 2004, and whether Fidelity agrees or disagrees that it has a contractual obligation to pay any of the costs enumerated in the "compilation" by virtue of being Aerojet's insurer upon specified policies. In Special Interrogatory No. 34, Aerojet asks Fidelity to "State the total amount of expense identified in the COMPILATION which Fidelity contends it is obligated to pay pursuant to its DUTY TO DEFEND." Fidelity responded, "Zero, although based on letters Aerojet has written in response to requests for more information, Fidelity & Casualty will be offsetting certain amounts not previously reimbursed from certain overpayments made by Fidelity & Casualty. An accounting will be made at that time. Moreover, Fidelity & Casualty has already paid $1,703,151 in defense expenses and is processing additional amounts now." When asked in Special Interrogatory No. 36 to identify all facts, witnesses and documents that support Fidelity's response to Special Interrogatory No. 34, Fidelity responded with a six and one-half page answer which can be fairly summarized as follows: (1) the interrogatory is objectionable because it is burdensome, oppressive and overbroad; (2) Fidelity had not completed its discovery on the issue; (3) Fidelity needed information from Aerojet to answer the question, but Aerojet has failed to provide same; (4) Fidelity might not comprehend the significance of information already in its possession that may bear upon its answer; (5) the answer requires expert analysis, so the question is premature since experts need not be disclosed in the action until May 27, 2005; (6) Fidelity is not obligated to pay any expense reflected in the "compilation" unless it was reasonable and necessary to defend the toxic tort cases; (7) expenses claimed by Aerojet to be indemnity expenses sought from other insurers, cannot be defense expenses; (8) expenses incurred prior to Aerojet's tender to Fidelity in March 1998, are not recoverable defense expenses; (9) expenses in the compilation which other third parties have agreed to pay are not Fidelity's obligation; (10) 90 million dollars paid by other insurers for unallocated settlements on behalf of, or to reimburse, Aerojet, reduce the alleged expense total in Fidelity's favor; (11) costs incurred by Aerojet to cleanup toxics are not "defense" costs, even if those "costs" may assist Aerojet in future litigation; (12) Aerojet has not internally treated the enumerated costs as defense costs; (13) Aerojet and its counsel do not know the purpose of "certain" of the expenses; (14) "millions of dollars" of the expenses were incurred while the related actions were stayed, and while it was unknown whether Aerojet had exposure, so those expenses were not reasonable; (15) Fidelity has paid $1,703,151.00 of the expenses, and is "processing" other expenses for payment; (16) Fidelity has requested further information from Aerojet regarding some of the expenses, but the information has not been provided; (17) some of the expenses were exacerbated by an alleged conflict of interest involving Aerojet's legal counsel; (18) Fidelity has no coverage or defense duty under policy XAP 59226; and (19) Fidelity's duties as to the water entity lawsuits are dubious. In addition to the foregoing, Fidelity reminds in its opposition that its responses also incorporate by reference approximately ten "general objections," including prophylactic assertions of the attorney-client privilege, work product privilege, and joint defense privilege. Further, Fidelity also names 17 specific witnesses, and two broad categories of other witnesses, and lists numerous broad and general categories of responsive documents. Thereafter, Fidelity incorporates its response to Special Interrogatory No. 34 by reference into Special Interrogatory Nos. 37, 43, 45, 47, 50, 53, 56, 59, 61, 62, and 64. Many of these incorporated responses provide an answer and then add "but see" or "except see" response to No. 34, as a condition to the answer. Fidelity incorporates its response to Special Interrogatory No. 36 (as summarized above) by reference into its responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 49, 54, 57, 60, 63, 68, 70, 73, 76, and 79. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030(f), Fidelity was required to respond to Aerojet's Special Interrogatories "separately" by "(1) an answer containing the information sought to be discovered, (2) an exercise of its option to produce writings, or (3) an objection to the particular interrogatory." Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030(f)(1), each of Fidelity's answers in the response were required to "be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available" to Fidelity permitted. Under the same section, if Fidelity could not answer the interrogatory completely, it was required to answer to the extent possible. Further, if Fidelity did not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, it was required to so state, and to make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information was equally available to Aerojet. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030(f)(3), if Fidelity intended to make an objection to an interrogatory or to a part of an interrogatory, Fidelity was required to set forth clearly the specific ground for the objection. And, if Fidelity's objection was to be based on a claim of privilege, Fidelity was required to clearly state the particular privilege invoked. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023(a)(5), (6), (8) and (9), misuses of the discovery process include: making, without substantial justification, a meritless objection to discovery; making an evasive response to discovery; opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel discovery; and failing to reasonably and meaningfully participate in the meet and confer process in good faith. The court finds that Fidelity has not complied with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030(f)(1) and (2), and that an order compelling Fidelity to provide further responses as provided below is warranted under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030(l) because the answers to the specified interrogatories are evasive and/or incomplete, and the objections asserted are without merit and/or are too general. Interpreted liberally in favor of Fidelity, its answer to Special Interrogatory No. 34 means that Fidelity does not contend that it is obligated to pay for any of the specifically identified expenses enumerated in Aerojet's "compilation" pursuant to its duty to defend under its policy Nos. XP180473, XP180497, XP373301, 15 LAZ 10213, and/or L-0705436. However, Fidelity contends that it has previously made overpayments to or on behalf of Aerojet, and that it will "reimburse" some of the expenses on the "compilation" by offsetting the overpayments against those expenses, and providing an accounting to Aerojet. In further exception, Fidelity contends that it has already paid $1,703,151 of the compiled expenses, so it is no longer "obligated to pay" those expenses. And, Fidelity contends that it shall be paying some more of the compiled expenses which it is currently "processing." Fidelity's response Nos. 34 is internally inconsistent, and its contradictions clearly evidence the fact that Fidelity's response is both evasive and incomplete. First, if Fidelity is in fact "processing" some of the expenses listed on the compilation for payment, Fidelity's answer to the interrogatory cannot be "zero." Likewise, even if Fidelity intends to satisfy some of the expenses on the compilation by virtue of offset, its answer to the interrogatory cannot be "zero." Based upon Fidelity's own answer, its must currently have some preliminary dollar figure calculated. On the other hand, if the court's interpretation of Fidelity's response No. 34 is incorrect, it is solely because the response is vague, ambiguous or contains irrelevant information. Similarly, Fidelity's response to Special Interrogatory No. 36 contains inconsistencies which demonstrate that it is either incomplete or evasive. Fidelity asserts that it is not obligated to pay expenses incurred prior to tender, however it fails to identify any of those expenses in the compilation even those each line item is dated. Fidelity asserts that Aerojet's counsel cannot explain the bases of "certain" expenses, but again fails to identify those line items that Aerojet cannot explain. Fidelity disavows any obligation to reimburse expenses incurred while the matter was stayed, but again fails to identify those expenses. Fidelity contends that it has requested information regarding certain lines items, and denies them at this time on that basis, but fails to identify the related expenses. Fidelity contends that it is not obligated to pay expenses unless reasonable and necessary to defend the toxic tort cases and asserts that it is processing some of those expenses for payment at this time, but maintains that it is not obligated to pay any of the expenses. Fidelity claims to have paid in excess of one million dollars worth of the compiled expenses, but fails to identify which expenses have been satisfied or will be offset. In addition, Fidelity's reference to two broad categories of witnesses, and its list of numerous broad and general categories of documents, it not adequate to satisfy its duty under the code. The inconsistencies, ambiguity and vagueness of Fidelity's responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 34 and 36, infect its responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 49, 50, 53, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 68, 70, 73, 76, and 79. Response No. 36 also infects Fidelity's response to Form Interrogatory 17.1. One example should suffice. Special Interrogatory 50 asks Fidelity to "DESCRIBE each expense item listed in the COMPILATION that Fidelity believes was reasonable and necessary to avoid or minimize Aerojet's liability in the PRIVATE ACTIONS." Fidelity responds, "None, but see response to Interrogatory 34." Fidelity's response to No. 34 indicates that Fidelity has paid, and anticipates paying, some of the expenses listed in the compilation presumably because they were defense costs in the PRIVATE ACTIONS. Further, Fidelity's objections upon the ground that the interrogatories are burdensome, overbroad, or oppressive are overruled. Fidelity's blanket objections upon the three grounds of privilege are not properly or clearly stated in the interrogatories, and are overruled. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031(g), Fidelity was required to respond to Aerojet's Demand No. 1 to its Fifth Request for Production with a statement that Fidelity will comply with the particular demand for inspection and any related activities, a representation that Fidelity lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection of a particular item or category of item, or an objection to the particular demand. A statement that the party to whom an inspection demand has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, and related activity demanded will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production. If Fidelity intended to object to the demand for inspection of an item or category of item, it was required to "(A) identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, or land falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made, and (B) set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection." Further, if Fidelity's objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege it intended to invoke must be stated in the response. Fidelity's response does not satisfy these requirements of Section 2031. The court intends to issue the proposed order submitted by Aerojet with the motion. Department 54 April 25, 2005 Page 12 ______________ *** ITEM 26 CV527932 AEROJET-GENERAL CORP., VS. FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY, ETAL Nature of Proceeding: MT TO COMPEL RESP TO DEPO Filed By: LEE, KATRINA J. Plaintiff's motion to compel defendant Fidelity & Casualty Company to respond to entity deposition questions is granted as follows. Quite simply, Aerojet wants to know why it was not fully reimbursed for some expenses it submitted to Fidelity. More specifically, it seeks the process, facts, documents, policies and procedures which Fidelity used to deny certain payments. According to Rider's testimony, it was coverage counsel, not her, who audited Aerojet's expenses and made a recommendation. Rider then passed that recommendation, "after reviewing the documents," up the chain for payment authority. That's the process. Thus, from her deposition at least, it appears that Rider had little to do with the act of determining what payments to make. "There are bills that, when Mr. Crane reviews, [he] feels that, for whatever reason . . . should not be reimbursed. Why those decisions were made, I do not know." 163:17-21. Crane's numerous letters to Aerojet, exhibits to Rider's deposition, indicate that he, rather than Rider, made the determinations about which Aerojet seeks information. Further, many of those letters provide Aerojet with at least some of the answers it seeks from Rider, particularly with respect to "charges . . . related to government claims." It is difficult to imagine, then, what more Aerojet would get out of Rider. She cannot testify as to what coverage counsel thought and did. Ironically, there does not appear to be a more knowledgeable person, other than Crane. Yet many of Rider's responses, e.g., "I don't recall," suggest that at some time she did have some knowledge responsive to Aerojet's questions. Aerojet may again put to Rider questions 1, 2, 5-8, 11, 13-20, 22, 24-27, 29, 30, 34, 35, and 39. Rider has already answered the remaining questions or cannot answer what was in the mind of coverage counsel. If Rider does not know the answer to these questions she may say so. However, to ensure that she has the ability to provide complete answers, Rider, must re-familiarize herself with her role in authorizing the payments listed in number 7, as well as with the invoices and other documents that Aerojet submitted to Fidelity in number 8. The fact that coverage counsel may have also reviewed these documents doesn't endow them with a privilege. With respect to number 11, the question is moot as coverage counsel rather than Rider determined what to pay Aerojet. Were it not moot, Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255 would prohibit such questioning. The court fails to see the difference between making a legal determination of what to pay prior to litigation and making the same determination later for an answer. As the parties do not dispute that Rider's deposition has not been completed, the court need not order a further deposition take place. The court admonishes the parties that in the future, it will not consider any exhibit that does not comply with CRC rules 311(e), and 316(a) and (c). This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC rule 391 or other notice is required. f Department 54 April 25, 2005 Page 13 ______________ *** ITEM 27 03AM03634 JEADENIA ROBERTS VS. CANDICE PAGLIERO Nature of Proceeding: Motion To Withdraw Atty of Rec Filed By: SHEEDY, NICHOLAS J. The court file only contains Form MC-051, Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil; the file does not have Form MC-052, Declaration or Form MC-053, Order, which are required to be served with the moving papers. C.R.C. rule 376. The motion is dropped. *** ITEM 28 04AM03417 BENEFICIAL CALIFORNIA, INC. VS. PAMELA J. NELSON Nature of Proceeding: Summary Judgment Filed By: SHWACHMAN, ARTHUR W. Plaintiff's undisputed evidence and facts show that defendant entered into a loan agreement with plaintiff; became indebted to plaintiff on an open book account and an account stated in writing; plaintiff performed all conditions, covenants and promises required by the agreement; defendant is indebted to plaintiff in the amount of $8,037.44, principal and $5,150.29, interest for a total of $13,187.73. Since plaintiff did not supply any evidence regarding the amount of attorney's fees charged and paid, they must be sought by noticed motion. C.R.C. rule 870.2. Costs to be sought per cost memorandum. Since defendant Nelson failed to oppose the motion, she has failed to create a triable issue of material fact or otherwise show plaintiff is not entitled to judgment. The motion for summary judgment is granted; see declaration of Angela Davis and exhibits 1, 2 and 3. This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order is needed, C.R.C. rule 391. Plaintiff to serve defendant Nelson with notice of the Court's ruling no later than Monday, April 25, 2005. C.C.P. 1019.5. c Department 54 April 25, 2005 Page 14 ______________ *** ITEM 29 04AM07970 JD MARCHI, INC. VS. MICHELLE BRANTON, ET AL Nature of Proceeding: Motion To Withdraw Atty of Rec Filed By: ASMUS, ROBERT The motion to withdraw as counsel of record for Michelle Branton; Michael Koks; Solano Magazine; Branton Koks, Inc.; and ABCDEE Business Services, Inc. is granted. The order becomes effective on the day counsel files a proof of service in department 54 stating a copy of the signed order was served on the client. Counsel is to also serve all other parties who appeared in the case with a copy of the signed order. Since counsel did not include notice to the client of the court's tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 3.04(B), counsel must either appear at the hearing or be on telephone standby in case the clients appear at the hearing. *** ITEM 30 04AM08776 CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERV. VS. MARTHA D. ROBINSON, ET AL Nature of Proceeding: MOT TO DEEM FACTS ADMITTED OR COMPEL RESPONSE/SANCTIONS Filed By: WINN, BRIAN N. Plaintiff's motion is granted; opposition was not received by the Court. The Request for Admissions, set one, served on defendant Martha D. Robinson, Jr. are deemed Admitted unless, prior to the hearing, defendant Robinson serves proposed responses that comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033(f)(1). C.C.P.  2033(k). A mandatory monetary sanction of $161.30 is awarded to plaintiff from defendant Robinson. This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order is needed, C.R.C. rule 391. Plaintiff to serve defendant with notice of the Court's ruling no later than Monday, April 25, 2005. C.C.P. 1019.5. c Department 54 April 25, 2005 Page 15 ______________ *** ITEM 31 04ED51272 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL VS. CHENGUSOYANE BWANAUSI Nature of Proceeding: CLAIM OF EXEMPTION Filed By: MCLAUGHLIN, L. The claim of exemption is denied. The claim of exemption is based on the fact that the earnings of the judgment debtor are needed for his/her support or the support of his/her family. An exemption on that ground is not available since the underlying judgment is for a debt incurred for the common necessaries of life. Unemployment Insurance wrongfully obtained is presumed to be used for the common necessaries of life. However, the judgment creditor is willing to accept a lesser amount than it is entitled to garnish. The Sheriff is therefore directed to garnish $208 per month from the judgment debtor's earnings and return to the judgment debtor any amount it is holding greater than $416. *** ITEM 32 05AM01214 JAMES LOVE, ET AL VS. TERRIE NORMAN Nature of Proceeding: Motion To Dismiss Filed By: NORMAN, TERRIE Defendant's motion to dismiss is dropped. Defendant served the motion herself, which is improper; furthermore, the proof of service is sworn under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Utah, not California. See C.C.P.  2015.5. *** ITEM 33 05ED00602 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL VS. TRACEY D. WONG Nature of Proceeding: CLAIM OF EXEMPTION Filed By: KURTTILA, J. The claim of exemption is denied. The claim of exemption is based on the fact that the earnings of the judgment debtor are needed for his/her support or the support of his/her family. An exemption on that ground is not available since the underlying judgment is for a debt incurred for the common necessaries of life. Unemployment Insurance wrongfully obtained is presumed to be used for the common necessaries of life. However, the judgment creditor is willing to accept a lesser amount than it is entitled to garnish. The Sheriff is therefore directed to garnish $216 per month from the judgment debtor's earnings and return to the judgment debtor any amount it is holding greater than $432. Department 54 April 25, 2005 Page 16 ______________ *** ITEM 34 97AM03786 SAFE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION VS. BRYAN K. RANKIN, ET AL Nature of Proceeding: CLAIM OF EXEMPTION Filed By: SIPES, MICHAEL K. The claim of exemption is granted. ***