Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 23STCV17263, Date: 2024-01-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV17263    Hearing Date: January 4, 2024    Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

Rivas, et. al. vs. Kia America, Inc, et. al., Case No. 23STCV17263

Tentative Ruling re:  Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief from Waiver of Objections

Plaintiffs Ada Isabel Rivas and Alba Cristina Mejia (collectively, Plaintiffs) move for relief from their waiver of objections to discovery served by Defendant Kia America, Inc. (Defendant). The motion is denied.

Parties that fail to serve timely responses to discovery requests waive any objections to those requests. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280.) The Court, on motion, may relieve a party from waiver, if a subsequent response was served in substantial compliance, and the failure to timely serve a response was the result of a mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a)(1); 2031.300, subd.(a)(1). 2033.280, subd. (a).) The standard for “mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect” for relief of waiver of objections is the same as under Code Civ. Proc. § 473. (City of Fresno v. Superior Court (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1459, 1467.)

On August 30, 2023, Defendant served on Plaintiffs the Requests for Production (Set One), Requests for Admission (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Form Interrogatories (Set One). (Lee Decl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs did not provide responses by the deadline on October 3, 2023. (Lee Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiffs’ counsel states that the lack of responses was due to a calendaring error that mistakenly set the deadline as November 3, 2023. Plaintiffs’ counsel learned of the error on October 5, 2023, after being notified by defense counsel that the responses were due. (Lee Decl. ¶¶ 5-6.)  Plaintiffs served responses to the discovery on October 5, 2023, and served supplemental responses on October 13, 2023. (Lee Decl. ¶¶ 5-7.)

            Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ responses to the discovery are not in “substantial compliance.” The Court agrees. Plaintiffs’ responses each improperly assert “General Objections” that are purportedly incorporated into each individual request or interrogatory. (Lee Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. 3 [13, 106].) This is not a proper form of objection. A party to whom an interrogatory, request for production, or request for admission has been served must respond separately to each request. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.210, subd. (a); 2031.210, subd. (a); 2033.210, subd. (a).)

In addition, Plaintiffs responded to a number of Defendant’s Special Interrogatories only by referring to Plaintiffs’ document production. (Lee Decl., Ex. 3 [110.) This is also improper. Answers to interrogatories “shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220, subd. (a).) An answering party may refer to documents in response to an interrogatory only where “the answer to an interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the party to whom the interrogatory is directed, and if the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the party propounding the interrogatory as for the responding party.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.230.) Plaintiffs have not shown that this is the case here. Because Plaintiffs’ responses are not in substantial compliance with the discovery statutes, the motion is denied.