Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 23STCV30212, Date: 2024-08-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV30212    Hearing Date: August 7, 2024    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDING: Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Responses to Requests for Production, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Requests for Admission, Set One

In this Lemon Law case, Plaintiff Faviola Pablo filed motions to compel discovery responses to her document requests, special interrogatories, and requests for admission. As set forth in Plaintiff’s motions, Defendant FCA US, LLC did not serve responses to the discovery requests served on Defendant on February 2, 2024. Thus, Plaintiff filed her motions to compel such responses on July 9, 2024.

Defendant’s opposition argues that the motions are moot because it served responses on July 31, 2024. Defendant’s responses, attached to the opposition, do not contain a verification and thus are tantamount to no response at all. Moreover, Defendant’s responses contain objections even though the responses are untimely, and Defendant has waived its objections. Defendant contends that its objections are permitted because its untimely responses are due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. But Defendant provides no attorney declaration explaining the facts regarding  this purported mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. The Court sees no grounds to conclude Defendant’s utter failure to respond to the discovery requests is due to any mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. The bottom line is Defendant waived its objections when it failed to respond timely. Luckily for Defendant, Plaintiff did not seek any sanctions in her motions. (Although Defendant inexplicably argued against awarding sanctions in its opposition.)

The motions to compel are granted. Defendant shall serve verified responses, without objections, to all of the discovery requests, by 5 p.m. on 8/16/2024.