 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Catholic Mutual Relief Society v. Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles4/25/2005
isfy any defense expenses or indemnify losses in connection with sexual abuse claims against the [Church], whether from reserves, policyholder surplus, reinsurance, or other available sources of funding.
3. All WRITINGS evidencing the number of sexual abuse claims that have been filed against policyholders affiliated with the Catholic church and the total amount of damages sought by these claims.
4. All WRITINGS evidencing the annual amount over the past five years of defense costs and indemnity payments incurred in connection with sexual abuse claims against policyholders affiliated with the Catholic church.
5. All WRITINGS evidencing the amount in reserves that have been set for sexual abuse claims against the [Church] by [petitioners].
6. All WRITINGS evidencing the total indemnity reserves, total defense and expense reserves, and total incurred but not reported reserves for sexual abuse claims against the [Church] by [petitioners].
7. All WRITINGS evidencing the amount in reserves that has been set for sexual abuse claims against all policyholders affiliated with the Catholic church.
8. All WRITINGS evidencing the totals for indemnity reserves, defense and expense reserves, and incurred but not reported reserves for sexual abuse claims against all policyholders affiliated with the Catholic church.
9. All WRITINGS PERTAINING TO reinsurance available to [petitioners] to satisfy defense or indemnity costs arising from the sexual abuse claims brought against the [Church].
10. All WRITINGS PERTAINING TO the most recent balance sheets, financial statements, or other financial filings with insurance regulators."
Petitioners moved to quash the subpoenas, contending that by seeking information about their financial condition, the document requests sought information that was not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and were therefore beyond the permissible scope of discovery. The trial court denied the motions to quash, finding that the subpoena requests-aimed at determining whether petitioners were financially able to pay any judgment that might be entered-were "clearly relevant and discoverable." His order was supported by decisions holding that information which might facilitate settlement was discoverable. Petitioners then brought their petition asking us to overturn the order. On October 30, 2004, we issued an order to show cause why we should not do so.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review discovery orders on the scope of permitted discovery under the abuse of discretion standard. That discretion is not arbitrary or unfettered, and must be exercised in conformity with existing legal principles. (People v. Superior Court (Mouchaourab) (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 403, 413.)
DISCUSSION
1. An Insurer's Financial Condition Is Not Included Within Code of Civil Procedure Section 2017, Subdivision (b)
The general scope of discovery is set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 2017, subdivision (a), which provides, in relevant part: ". . . any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable mat
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|