Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 24STCV, Date: 2024-10-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV-2829    Hearing Date: October 28, 2024    Dept: 14

#2

Case Background

This is an action for violations of the Song-Beverly Act.

On February 2, 2024, Plaintiffs Mathew Krishnamachari and New World Health Staffing filed their Complaint against FCA US, LLC.

On July 10, 2024, Plaintiffs filed these motions to compel Defendant’s responses to written discovery and to deem requests for admissions admitted.

On October 18, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition.

Instant Pleading

Plaintiffs move to compel Defendant’s responses to interrogatories and requests for production. Plaintiffs also move to deem requests for admission admitted.

Decision

Plaintiffs’ motions to compel Defendants’ responses to written discovery are DENIED.

Plaintiffs’ motion to deem requests for admissions admitted is DENIED.

Defendant’s motion for relief from waiver of objections is DENIED.

Discussion

Plaintiffs move to compel Defendants’ responses to special interrogatories, form interrogatories, and requests for production. Plaintiffs also move to deem requests for admissions admitted. Plaintiffs’ counsel testifies that after he served the requests for discovery on April 15, 2024, he granted Defendant’s request for an extension, meaning the responses were due June 17, 2024. (Lee Decl., ¶¶3-5.) Defendants failed to serve responses as of the date these motions were filed. (Id., ¶6.)

Defendants’ counsel represents that he served responses on July 26, 2024 and verifications on October 18, 2024. (Brezovec Decl., ¶¶4-5.)

Plaintiffs’ motions to compel and the motion deem requests for admissions admitted are DENIED because Defendant served verified responses before the hearing on these matters.

Defendant moves for relief from waiver of objections. Code Civ. Proc., section 2033.280(a) provides that the court may, on motion, relieve a party from his waiver of objections to interrogatories if (1) the party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230, and (2) the party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. Identical sections governing requests for production and requests for admissions exist in Code Civ. Proc., sections 2031.300 and 2033.280.

The statutory language “mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect” in the discovery statute should be interpreted using the same general principles developed in application of the identical language in section 473, subdivision (b). (Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 263, 275.) Although the party moving for relief under section 473 has the burden to show that the mistake, inadvertence, or neglect was excusable, any doubts as to that showing must be resolved in favor of the moving party. (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1420.)  

Here, Defendant meets the first element because it served code compliant responses. However, Defendant fails to meet the second element. Defendant alleges that it failed to serve timely responses because the exponential increase in Song-Beverly matters caused a mistake regarding the status of the discovery responses. However, this assertion is not supported by evidence. Defendant’s counsel’s declaration does not discuss this mistake, nor is there any other evidence that the responses were untimely due to a mistake. Therefore, Defendant fails meet its burden of showing that its failure to serve timely responses was due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. Defendant’s motion for relief from waiver of objections is DENIED.

Conclusion

Plaintiffs’ motions to compel Defendants’ responses to written discovery are DENIED.

Plaintiffs’ motion to deem requests for admissions admitted is DENIED.

Defendant’s motion for relief from waiver of objections is DENIED.