Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 22STCV28634, Date: 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28634    Hearing Date: May 4, 2023    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

Plaintiff Rukli, Inc. sues Defendant City of Baldwin Park and Does 1 through 50 pursuant to a September 1, 2022 Complaint seeking declaratory judgment providing that (1) a 2021 settlement agreement between the parties is void and unenforceable due to the City’s nonperformance of contractual terms in a 2021 settlement agreement between the parties—e.g., failure to issue a cannabis cultivation and manufacturing license—for which reason the parties are returned to the positions they were in before the 2021 settlement agreement was executed and (2) in light of the City’s nonperformance, Rukli does not owe the City any fees for cannabis cultivation and manufacturing licenses mandated by the parties’ 2021 settlement agreement.

The City of Baldwin Park, in turn, sues Rukli pursuant to a November 4, 2022 First Amended Cross-Complaint (FAXC) alleging claims of (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Maintenance of Nuisance, (3) Declaratory Relief – Length or Term of 2021 Settlement Agreement, (4) Declaratory Relief – Determination of Distribution Permit Fee Under the [2021] Settlement Agreement, (5) Declaratory Relief – Determination of Ongoing Validity of [2018] Development Agreement, if Plaintiff [Rukli] is Entitled to Void the [2021] Settlement Agreement, and (6) Declaratory Relief – Determination of Meaning of Term “Distributor” Under the [2021] Settlement Agreement.

On January 28, 2023, the City of Baldwin Park served Plaintiff Rukli with Request for Production, Set 2.

Plaintiff Rukli failed to respond thereto within the statutorily prescribed time of 30 days.

On March 16, 2023, Rukli served verified responses to Request for Production, Set 2.

On the same day, Rukli made a motion for relief from waiver of objections to Request for Production, Set 2 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 473 and 2031.300.

On April 21, 2023, the City of Baldwin Park opposed the motion.

On April 27, 2023, Rukli replied to the April 21st opposition.

The motion for relief from waiver of objections is now before the Court.

Motion for Relief from Waiver of Objections to Requests for Production

I. Waiver Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 473

Legal Standard

California courts must vacate any default, default judgment, dismissal, or other proceeding entered against an attorney’s client whenever an application for relief is made no more than six months after entry of the relevant order, is in proper form, and is accompanied by the attorney’s sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect, unless the court finds that the fault was not in fact caused by the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).)

The broad language of Section 473, subdivision (b)—i.e., “judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding”—includes discovery proceedings. (See Zellerino v. Brown (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1097, 1104-1106.) However, where California Discovery Act provisions apply to issues relating to “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect,” relief cannot be obtained under Section 473, subdivision (b) because the Legislature’s use of Section 473’s language indicates its intent that relief be obtained under Discovery Act provisions and not under Code of Civil Procedure Section 473, subdivision (b). (Id. at p. 1107; Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 263, 274-275.) For example, the Discovery Act provides for relief like that provided by Section 473, subdivision (b) in relation to a responding party’s failure to timely respond to a propounding party’s request for responses to interrogatories (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subds. (a)(1)-(2)), requests for production (2031.300, subds. (a)(1)-(2)), or a request for admission (2033.290, subds. (a)(1)-(2)).

Analysis

Relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) is not here available because relief pursuant to this statutory section is not available for discovery proceedings where similar relief is provided by the Discovery Act. (Zellerino v. Brown, supra, 235 Cal.App.3d at p. 1107; Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 59 Cal.App.4th at pp. 274-275.) Similar relief is provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subds. (a)(1)-(2).) This motion is therefore DENIED insofar as it is premised on Code of Civil Procedure section 473.

II. Waiver Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300

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 [interrogatories], subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a) [production], 2033.290, subd. (a) [admission requests].) 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) [interrogatories], 2031.300, subds. (a)(1)-(2) [production], 2033.290, subds. (a)(1)-(2) [admission requests].)

Analysis

Plaintiff argues that while the responses to the requests for production are late, the Court should grant relief from waiver of objections, on the grounds that 1) the failure to respond was an oversight and that plaintiff’s attorney Mr. Russo was in the middle of meeting and conferring about a prior document request when a second set came in; 2) that the second set of document requests was sent to him only and did not copy his secretary, in contrast to “all the other emails” between the parties in this case; 3) plaintiff’s counsel failed to forward the email to his secretary; 4) the second set contains 92 new requests, many of which are redundant of the first 35 requests; and 5) he subsequently served a set of responses that substantially comply with the discovery code.

In opposition, the City argues that 1) the responses are not substantially compliant in a variety of ways; 2) Rukli’s counsel’s “‘mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect’ is not justifiable” because by his own admission, he “ignored” the email, blamed the City for not copying his secretary, and was reminded about the discovery responses on March 2 and on subsequent occasions but failed to serve responses for another 14 days.

In reply, Rukli reiterates that the failure to respond was inadvertent and notes that he filed substantially compliant responses once he realized the mistake, rather than filing a motion for protective order against what he believed to be excessive requests.

The Court will grant relief from waiver of objections. There are times when it may be appropriate to hold a party to their waiver of objections – where conduct is repeated, evasive, or in bad faith --  but this is not that case. Indeed the words and phrase “inadvertent,” “mistake,” and “excusable neglect” well define what happened here: counsel made a mistake, which he quickly corrected. Filing the responses within a two-week time period of being notified of his error is more than reasonable. It can take time to speak with one’s client and formulate a reasonable response, especially given that a lawyer seldom has only a single case to attend to. Had Mr. Russo been required to respond more quickly he likely would have been forced to simply file objections which the City certainly would not have taken kindly.

Moreover, while the City points to failings in Rukli’s responses that did not mirror the language required by the Code, the Court agrees with Mr. Russo that he did provide substantially compliant responses that permitted the City to know what his position was with respect to each request. The fact that the City met and conferred and followed up to get further responses does not translate to the kind of conduct that would justify denial of this motion.

The Court must interpret the discovery code consistent with the spirit of the law and in a matter that serves the interests of justice and the policy favoring trial on the merits. (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 783-784.) Any doubts as to the showing of mistake, inadvertence or neglect must be resolved in favor of the moving party. (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1420 [in the context of motion for relief from admissions to RFAs].) With such a standard in mind, the Court will grant the motion. 

Conclusion

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Rukli, Inc.’s Motion Pursuant to CCP 473 and CCP Section 2031.300 for Relief from Waiver of Objections to Request for Production is GRANTED.