Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 22STCV16748, Date: 2023-01-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV16748    Hearing Date: January 12, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiffs Maryam Panahitabrizi and Elham Naderi (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendant Erika Srasivlericivie (“Defendant”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.      

On July 21, 2022, Plaintiffs electronically served form interrogatories, set one, special interrogatories, set one, request for admissions (“RFAs”), set one, and request for production of documents (“RPDs”), set one, on Defendant.  Defendant provides that the written discovery was served along with a deposition notice, which defense counsel forwarded to his secretary for calendaring, but defense counsel did not forward the written discovery requests to his paralegal that helps calendar and prepare responses.  Defendant provides that after Plaintiffs met and conferred regarding the discovery, Defendant served untimely responses on September 21, 2022. 

Defendant now moves for relief from its waiver of its objections to the relevant discovery.  Plaintiffs filed an omnibus opposition to the motions, and Defendant filed a reply.  The motions are largely identical and will be analyzed together. 

Defendant asserts that defense counsel mistakenly and inadvertently did not forward the written discovery requests to his paralegal that calendars and assists in preparing responses, which defense counsel asserts was an oversight on his part.   

In opposition, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant waived objections to the discovery requests by failing to timely submit responses.  Plaintiffs further argue that Defendant’s responses are not Code-compliant because they boilerplate and irrelevant objections, and that defense counsel’s mistake was not excusable. 

In reply, Defendant contends that the responses are Code-compliant because Defendant has provided substantive responses to the majority of requests and objected only to those seeking privileged or protected information.   Additionally, Defendant argues the failure to provide timely responses was due to mistake and inadvertence, and that the error has not resulted in any prejudice to Plaintiff.

2. Motions for Relief from Waiver of Objections

The motions are governed by CCP §§ 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a), and 2033.280(a), all of which provide that a party who fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests waives any objections, but the court may relieve the party from the waiver if its determined both that (1) the party has subsequently serve responses that are in substantial compliance, and (2) the party's failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

The words “mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect” have the same meaning in the discovery statutes as those terms have in CCP § 473(b).[1]  (New Albertsons v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1418-19; see also Carli v. Superior Court (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 1095, 1099 [in the context of deemed admissions § 473 should be applied liberally “so cases can be tried on the merits”].)

First, Defendant provides copies of the discovery responses it served on Plaintiff.  (Mot. for Relief Interrogatories Exh. C; Mot. for Relief RPDs Exh. C; Mot. Relief RFAs Exh. C.)  The Court has reviewed Defendant’s responses and finds they are in substantial compliance with the Code.  Plaintiff argues the responses are not in substantial compliance because the objections asserted are invalid and improper.  However, whether the objections asserted in the responses are improper depends on whether the instant motion is denied or granted. 

Second, as to whether Defendant’s failure to serve timely responses constitute mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, Defendant avers that Plaintiff electronically served the discovery on defense counsel, but defense counsel did not forward the discovery and email to his paralegal that assists in calendaring and preparing responses.  (Mots. Galang Decl. ¶ 5.)  While the attorney assigned to handle this matter for Defendant was out of the office, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed defense counsel regarding the discovery and requested responses without objections.  (Id. at ¶ 9.)  Upon returning to the office, Defendant’s counsel served responses to the discovery on September 20, 2022.  (Id. at ¶ 12.)  

            Defendant’s evidence shows the failure to serve timely responses was the result of defense counsel’s mistake and inadvertence in failing to ensure the discovery responses were properly calendared.  Moreover, Plaintiff does not identify any prejudice if responses are permitted with objections, and justice is served by hearing cases on their merits. 

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motions for relief from waiver of objections are granted. 

Defendant is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 12^th day of January 2023