Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV26196, Date: 2024-07-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV26196    Hearing Date: July 11, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

            Defendant/Cross-Complainant Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (“Cross-Complainant”), moves for relief from waiver of objections to Cross-Defendant A.J. Molino & Associates, Inc.’s (“Cross-Defendant”) Request for Production, Set One and Request for Admission, Set One. Cross-Defendant opposes and Cross-Complainant replies.

LEGAL STANDARD

A party who fails to serve a timely response to a demand for inspection (or request for admission) waives any objection to the demand, including based on privilege or work product, unless the court finds that the party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance and the party’s failure was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.300 (a), 2033.280(a).)

The Civil Discovery Act does not include a definition of “substantial compliance,” and few cases have addressed the circumstances under which a response will be deemed not in substantial compliance. (See St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 778 (St. Mary).) Substantial compliance means actual compliance with respect to the substance essential to every reasonable objective of the statute. (Id. at 779.) However, substantial compliance should not be understood as requiring actual compliance with every specific statutory requirement. (Ibid.)¿¿ 

¿ 

A court may not find that only some portions of a document containing responses are code-compliant, but must instead determine whether the document as whole substantially complies. (St. Mary, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at 779–80 [this position is supported by the fact that there is an effective statutory vehicle to compel a responding party to cure unsatisfactory responses].)¿ 

The statutory language “mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect” in the discovery statute should be interpreted using the same general principles developed in application of the identical language in section 473, subdivision (b). (Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 263, 275.) Although the party moving for relief under section 473 has the burden to show that the mistake, inadvertence, or neglect was excusable, any doubts as to that showing must be resolved in favor of the moving party. (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1420.)¿¿ 

DISCUSSION

Cross-Defendant served Request for Production, Set One and Request for Admission, Set One on Cross-Complainant on March 5, 2024. The responses were originally due April 5, 2024. (Sohrabian Decl. ¶ 2-3.) These responses were served on prior counsel. During this time, Cross-Complainant changed representation and the case file was being transferred to current counsel (who moved to a different firm). Current counsel substituted into this case on April 22, 2024. (Id. ¶ 5.) However, the file still had not been transferred. As a result, Cross-Complainant requested an extension to May 31, 2024, which Cross-Defendant granted. However, “[o]n Friday, May 31, 2024, our office experienced technical issues with the file, so our office emailed Cross-Defendant’s counsel in the evening that we would have responses by Monday morning, June 3, 2024. On June 3, 2024, Cross-Defendant’s counsel indicated that he had not granted the extension and therefore objections were waived.” (Id. ¶ 10-11.) Cross-Complainant’s counsel, Tiffany E. Sohrabian, declares that because of the “technical issue”, she could not access the Request for Production, Set One and Request for Admission, Set One. (Id. ¶ 14.) Cross-Defendant then re-served the discovery on June 6, 2024, and Cross-Complainant provided responses on June 10, 2024. (Id. ¶ 15-16.)

In opposition, Cross-Defendant confirms that extensions were granted until May 31, 2024. However, when Cross-Complainant asked to serve responses by June 3, 2024, it does not appear that Cross-Defendant agreed. (Opp., 3; Kim Decl. ¶ 24.) Instead, Cross-Defendant demanded responses without objections. Cross-Defendant argues that counsel acted negligently by attempting to complete the responses at the end of the day when they were due. (Opp., 5.) It also argues that the responses are not substantially compliant.

Cross-Complainant describes the “technical issues with the file” with limited detail and asserts in reply, without a supporting declaration, that “when Defendant Foot Locker’s counsel attempted to open the discovery documents on May 31, 2024, in order to complete the responses, she discovered that the files were corrupted and she was unable to open them.  Further, she was unable to obtain another copy of the discovery documents on May 31, 2024, because she did not realize this until after the end of the business day.” (Reply, 2.) However, it appears that when Cross-Complainant did receive the re-served electronic versions of discovery on June 6, Cross-Complainant did not complete the responses on the same day, and did not provide them until June 10. Cross-Complainant does not explain the further untimeliness or otherwise provide a basis for the Court to find excusable neglect. This delay undermines Cross-Complainant’s argument that a “technical issue” resulted in delay.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Cross-Complainant Foot Locker Retail, Inc.’s Motion to be Relieved from Waiver of Objections to Requests for Admissions and Requests for Production of Documents is DENIED.

Moving party to provide notice and file a proof of service of such.