Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 24STCV02090, Date: 2024-12-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV02090    Hearing Date: December 10, 2024    Dept: 52

Defendant Mercedes-Benz, LLC’s Motions for Relief from Waiver of Discovery Objections and Motion to Withdraw Admissions

Motions for Relief from Waiver of Objections

            Defendant Mercedes-Benz, LLC moves for relief from its waiver of objections to plaintiff’s form interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission.  A responding party who does not serve a timely response waives all objections to discovery requests.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a), 2033.280(a).)  The court may grant relief from that waiver when the responding party (1) “has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with” the statutes governing that method of discovery and (2) “[t]he party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.”  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(a)(1) & (2), 2031.300(a)(1) & (2), 2033.280(a)(1) & (2).)  Defendant meets both criteria. 

First, defendant served responses to the form interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission in July 2024.  (Hom Decls., ¶¶ 13-14, Exs. D-F.)  Plaintiff Lusine Boyajyan does not oppose these motions on the basis that the responses do not substantially comply with the Civil Discovery Act.  The court finds defendant’s responses are substantially compliant.

Second, defendant’s failure to serve a timely response resulted from mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.  Defendant’s counsel relied on an associate attorney to respond to discovery in this action.  (Hom Decls., ¶¶ 5-13, Ex. B.)  The associate falsely told her supervisor she had served responses on time.  (Id., ¶¶ 7-8.)  She later submitted a declaration stating she learned of a “previously undiagnosed medical condition” that caused her to “mistakenly [think] that discovery responses were served timely.”  (Id., Ex. B, ¶ 3.)  Under the circumstances, defendant’s counsel’s mistake, inadvertence, or neglect was excusable.  Denying these motions would prejudice defendant in a way that does not serve the interests of justice.  The court will grant relief from defendant’s waiver of objections.

Motion to Withdraw Admissions

            Defendant Mercedes-Benz, LLC moves to withdraw the admissions that were deemed true upon plaintiff’s motion to deem matters admitted.  “The court may permit withdrawal or amendment of an admission only if it determines that the admission was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, and that the party who obtained the admission will not be substantially prejudiced in maintaining that party’s action or defense on the merits.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.300, subd. (b).)  This provision “permits the withdrawal or amendment of deemed admissions.”  (Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 983 [interpreting former statute].)

A court’s discretion on a motion to withdraw admissions “must be exercised in conformity with the spirit of the law and in a manner that serves the interests of justice.”  (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1420.)  “Because the law strongly favors trial and disposition on the merits, any doubts in applying section 2033.300 must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief.  Accordingly, the court’s discretion to deny a motion under the statute is limited to circumstances where it is clear that the mistake, inadvertence, or neglect was inexcusable, or where it is clear that the withdrawal or amendment would substantially prejudice the party who obtained the admission in maintaining that party’s action or defense on the merits.”  (Id. at pp. 1420-1521.)

Defendant shows good cause to withdraw its admissions.  The matters were deemed admitted because defendant did not serve a timely response to plaintiff’s requests for admission.  For the same reasons discussed above, the admissions resulted from mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.  Withdrawing the admissions will not substantially prejudice plaintiff.  Plaintiff filed this action in January 2024.  The trial is set for July 29, 2025.  There is ample time to conduct discovery about the matters that were previously deemed admitted.

Disposition

Defendant Mercedes-Benz, LLC’s motions for relief from its waiver of objections to plaintiff’s form interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission are granted.

Defendant Mercedes-Benz, LLC’s motion to withdraw admissions is granted.