Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 21STCV13188, Date: 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV13188    Hearing Date: May 17, 2023    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

On April 7, 2021, Plaintiff Maricruz Santiago brought this action against Defendants Subaru of America, Inc., Universal Auto Group, Inc. (dba Subaru of Glendale), and Does 1 through 10 pursuant to (1)-(5) five Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act claims and (6) one Fraud claim, as based on allegations that, in December 2014, Plaintiff purchased a 2015 Subaru Forester from Subaru of Glendale, pursuant to express and implied warranties from Subaru of America, only for the vehicle to develop defects related to, among other things, the continuously variable transmission, the transmission, a performance recall, the illumination of the ABS light, and the VDC light, and/or hill assist light.

On August 20, 2021, Plaintiff Santiago served on Subaru of America (1) Form and Special Interrogatories (Set One), (2) Requests for Production (Set One), and (3) Request for Admissions (Set One).

On August 19, 2022, due to a complete nonresponse to these requests from Subaru of America, Plaintiff Maricruz Santiago made Motions to (1) Compel Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories (Set One), (2) Compel Responses to Requests for Production (Set One), and (3) Deem Requests for Admission (Set One) Admitted.

On December 20, 2022, Subaru of America provided Plaintiff Santiago what it represented as substantially code compliant responses to the August 20, 2021 discovery requests.

The record fails to reflect that Plaintiff Santiago requested further discovery as to Subaru of America’s late discovery responses.

On December 20, 2022, Subaru of America also made motions for relief from waiver of objections to Plaintiff Santiago’s Form and Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Admission (Set One).

On March 9, 2023, Subaru of America made a motion for relief from waiver of objections to Plaintiff Santiago’s Requests for Production (Set One).

On April 20, 2023, the Court heard and granted Subaru of America’s motion for relief from waiver of objections to Requests for Production (Set One).

On May 4, 2023, Plaintiff Santiago opposed Subaru of America’s December 20, 2022 motions for relief from waiver of objections to Form and Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Admission (Set One).

On May 10, 2023, Subaru of America replied to the combined May 4, 2023 opposition.

The motions for relief from waiver of objections to Form and Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Admission (Set One) are now before the Court.

Motion for Relief from Waiver

Legal Standard

A party that fails to timely respond to interrogatories, requests for production, or requests for admission waives all objections to these discovery requests. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a), 2033.290, subd. (a).) The court, on motion, may relieve that party from its waiver on the court’s determination that: (1) the party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with the Discovery Act, and (2) the party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subds. (a)(1)-(2), 2031.300, subds. (a)(1)-(2), 2033.290, subds. (a)(1)-(2).)

Analysis

I. Mistake, Inadvertence, Excusable Neglect

In its motions, Subaru of America first argues that it should be relieved of any waiver of objections and privileges related to the Form and Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Admission (Set One), served by Plaintiff on Subaru of America on August 20, 2021, because Subaru of America’s nonresponse was a result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect insofar as it failed to properly calendar the date for responses to Form and Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Admission (Set One)within the statutory time period as a result of Plaintiff having served these discovery requests on the wrong email address—i.e., failure to serve the Form and Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Admission (Set One) on case administrator Debbie Dahlen. (Interrogatories Waiver Mot., pp. 1-3; Admissions Waiver Mot., pp. 1-3.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that for various reasons, Subaru of America shows no mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect in failing to respond to the August 20, 2021 Form and Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Admission (Set One). Plaintiff first argues that service of these discovery requests was made on three email addresses belonging to attorneys working for defense counsel’s law firm. (Combined Opp’n, p. 5, Exs. 1-2.) Plaintiff next argues that no proof is presented in Subaru of America’s motions showing that defense counsel did not receive service thereof. (Combined Opp’n, pp. 5-6.) As a result, argues Plaintiff, the sixteen-month delay in providing responses to Form and Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Admission (Set One)is not excusable and shows Subaru of America’s disregard of its discovery obligations. (Combined Opp’n, p. 6.)

In reply and relevant part, Subaru of America argues (1) that service of Form and Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Admission (Set One) should have been effected on Debbie Dahlen as the appropriate service addressee, (2) that Ms. Lehrman, Mr. Villegas, and Mr. Phillipson are senior partners who receive hundreds of emails per day and reasonably expected service on Ms. Dahlen, and (3) that any neglect in reviewing the August 20, 2021 email by these senior partners constitutes neglect that is excusable. (Interrogatories Waiver Reply, pp. 3-4; Admissions Waiver Reply, pp. 3-4.)

The Court finds that mistake or excusable neglect exists for the purpose of relief from waiver of objections or privilege. Specifically, Subaru of America argues that defense counsel failed to calendar the date on which responses to Form and Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Admission (Set One) were due, causing nonresponse. The evidentiary facts provided in support are that service of this discovery should have been but was not effected on Debbie Dahlen, and that any service of these discovery requests on three senior partners was excusable because the partners’ inboxes are inundated by daily emails or because the partners simply failed to review the August 20, 2021 email at issue or to calendar responses to Form and Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Admission (Set One). These explanations provide the Court sufficient grounds to find that the senior partners who did receive email service of Form and Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Admission (Set One) either made a mistake in not reviewing the August 20, 2021 email or were excusably neglectful in failing to calendar the response date for these discovery requests, either themselves or through Debbie Dahlen.

Subaru of America has therefore established one of the two requirements for relief from waiver.

II. Substantial Compliance

In its motions, Subaru of America argues that on December 20, 2022, it served substantially code-compliant responses to the Form and Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Admission (Set One). (Interrogatories Waiver Mot., pp. 1-4; Admissions Waiver Mot., pp. 1-4.) Copies of the responses to Form and Special Interrogatories (Set One) are attached as Exhibits B and C to the Bell declaration accompanying the interrogatories waiver motion. (See Interrogatories Waiver Mot., Bell Decl., Exs. B-C.) A copy of the responses to Requests for Admission (Set One) is attached as Exhibit B to the Bell declaration accompanying the admissions waiver motion. (See Admissions Waiver Mot., Bell Decl. Ex. B.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the December 20, 2022 responses to the August 20, 2021 to Form and Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Admission (Set One) are deficient. Specifically, Plaintiff Santiago argues that Subaru of America’s “discovery responses are not anywhere close to being ‘substantially compliant,’ as it copies and pastes the same generic set of boilerplate objections to each and every discovery request propounded, without any specificity to the case at hand” and that, “[m]ore egregiously, the vast majority of Defendant’s responses only include objections with no substantive responses whatsoever.” (Combined Opp’n, p. 7.)

In reply, Subaru of America argues that “Plaintiff provides no legal support for the proposition that a defendant is obligated to substantively respond to each and every discovery Request and Interrogatory [or Admission] made by an opposing party, regardless of whether the Requests and Interrogatories [or Admission] seek irrelevant, privileged or confidential information, or are themselves Code-compliant.” (Interrogatories Waiver Reply, pp. 4-5; Admissions Waiver Reply, pp. 4-5.)

The Court finds that the discovery responses are substantially code compliant. The December 20, 2022 responses to the August 20, 2021 Form and Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Admission (Set One) contain a blend of objections and substantive responses that sufficiently provide an initial response to the discovery sought by Plaintiff Santiago. To the extent that Plaintiff found these responses to be deficient, it behooved Plaintiff to compel further discovery. The record fails to reflect that Plaintiff Santiago did so. Nevertheless, Subaru of America’s discovery responses adequately responded to Plaintiff Santiago’s discovery requests by presenting various, if repeated, grounds for objection, as well as substantive responses.

Subaru of America has therefore established the second requirement for relief from waiver.

Accordingly, Subaru of America’s motions are GRANTED. 

Conclusion

 Defendants Subaru of America, Inc.’s Motions for Order Relieving Responding Party from Waiver of Objections to Requests for Form and Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Admission (Set One) are GRANTED because Subaru of America has adequately shown that (1) its nonresponse to the August 20, 2021 discovery requests was the result of a mistake or excusable neglect in not calendaring the response date to Form and Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Admission (Set One) and (2) its December 20, 2022 responses are substantially code compliant.