Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 20STCV36312, Date: 2023-04-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV36312    Hearing Date: April 21, 2023    Dept: 28

Plaintiff Amy Melissa Mata’s Motion for Relief from Waiver of Objections to Request for Production of Documents

Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On September 23, 2020, Plaintiff Amy Melissa Mata (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Admiral Pest Control, Inc (“APC”) and Anthony Lee Bearden (“Bearden”) for negligence and negligence per se.

On October 23, 2020, Defendants filed an answer.

On February 14, 2023, APC filed Motions to Compel Discovery Responses to be heard on March 28 and 30, 2023. The Court continued the hearing on the motion to April 14, 2023.

On March 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Relief from Waiver of Objections to Request for Production of Documents to be heard on April 21, 2023. On April 10, 2023, Defendants filed an opposition.

Trial is currently scheduled for May 2, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff requests the Court grant relief from waiver of objections for Request for Production No. 97.

Defendants request the Court deny the motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.300, “If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: (a) The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280. (2) The party's failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.”

DISCUSSION

On November 8, 2022, Defendants served identical Requests for Production of Documents, Set Nos. 6, on Plaintiff’s counsel. Responses were due December 12, 2022. Plaintiff claims that Plaintiff’s paralegal failed to calendar the due date, resulting in late responses.

Plaintiff served unverified responses on December 22, 2022. These responses consisted of a mix of objections and substantive responses despite the fact the initial production date had passed. Plaintiff served additional verified responses on February 24, 2023. Verifications were served on March 14, 2023.

Plaintiff requests relief from waiver of objection under CCP § 2031.300(a). Under this section, a Court may relieve a party from the waiver upon determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: that the subsequently served responses substantially complied with the applicable CCP sections AND that the failure to serve was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

The subject Requests for Production asked: “Please produce all DOCUMENTS comprising of, referring to or relating to any text messages you have exchanged with any PERSON (excluding your attorneys) regarding the INCIDENT from the date of the INCIDENT through present.” Plaintiff responded with ““Objection. This request violates Responding Party’s right to privacy protected pursuant to the Cal. Const., Article I, §1. Further, this request seeks

information in violation of the doctrines of attorney-client privilege and attorney work product privilege.”

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Production No. 97 did not comply with the applicable CCP sections. CCP § 2031.240 requires that any responses that assert objections, based in part on a claim of privilege or of work product, provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of the claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log. No evidence or privilege log was offered in support of the objection. Plaintiff has not offered any information since this time and has failed to provide responses to Request for Production No. 97 in subsequent servings of discovery responses.

The Court does not find good cause to grant relief from waiver of the objections. Plaintiff failed to substantially comply with the applicable CCP requirements. The Court denies the motion.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Amy Melissa Mata’s Motion for Relief from Waiver of Objections to Request for Production of Documents is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.