Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 20STCV10363, Date: 2025-02-27 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

Case Number: 20STCV10363    Hearing Date: February 27, 2025    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

DEFENDANT COVINA-VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR

RELIEF FROM WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS is GRANTED.

Background

This is a negligence case. Plaintiff Michel Ramon (“Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendant Covina Valley Unified School District (“School District”) failed to guard and warn Plaintiff against an alleged dangerous condition after Plaintiff lost her balance and fell down the stairs of the school bleachers.

On March 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants Covina Valley Unified School District, John Doe Manufacturer (Doe 1), John Doe Distributor (Doe 2), John Doe Seller (Doe 3), and Does 4 through 50 for:

1.     Strict Products Liability,

2.     Breach of Express Warranty,

3.     Breach of Implied Warranty,

4.     Negligence,

5.     Gross Negligence, and

6.     Premises Liability

On September 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint realleging the same causes of action against the same Defendants.

On March 9, 2021, the School District filed its Answer.

On November 1, 2021, the School District filed four discovery motions.

On January 21, 2022, the court held its hearing on Defendant’s motions; a tentative ruling was posted. The court denied the RFAs but granted the other motions and imposed monetary sanctions.

On November 6, 2024, the court held an IDC; according to the minute order, there was no appearance by Defendant.

On November 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed four discovery motions.

On December 9, 2024, Defendant filed the instant motion.

On January 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed her opposition.

On February 20, 2024, Defendant filed its reply.

Discussion

Defendant moves this court for an order for relief from waiver of objections in response to Plaintiff’s propounded Special Interrogatories, Set One; Requests for Production of Documents, Set One; Form Interrogatories, Set One; and Request for Admissions, Set One, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290, subdivisions (a)(1) and (2), and 2031.300, subdivisions (a)(1) and (2).

The Court may relieve a party from its waiver of objections if the Court determines that “[t]he party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance” with the requirements for Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions, and Requests for Production of Documents, and that “[t]he party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subds. (a)(1) and (2) and 2031.300, subds. (a)(1) and (2).)

The following is the relevant timeline of events:

-        On February 8, 2024, Plaintiff served her initial set of discovery to the District; Defendant’s responses to this set of discovery were due on March 12, 2024.

-        An extension was granted March 26, 2024, April 9, 2024, April 18, 2024, May 2, 2024 and May 9, 2024.

-        On May 3, 2024, Defense Counsel served Plaintiff’s counsel with a notice of unavailability as one of the main attorneys on the case would be out from approximately May 14th to June 1, 2024.

-        On May 16, after the May 9 deadline for responses was due, Defendant requested another extension as it inadvertently calendared a May 16 response. Plaintiff’s counsel responded by stating that “the fact you missed my deadline is not my problem.” (See Spearman Decl., p. 76 of 83 of PDF.)

-        Plaintiff provided one last extension until May 20, but discovery responses had to be free of objections. On May 20, 2024, the District served its responses and objections to Plaintiff’s initial discovery request. Plaintiff claims they are not code compliant and evasive.

Defendant explains that extensions were needed because one of the main attorney’s was out of office and that the District made a mistake by mis-calendaring the discovery deadline. (See Motion p. 4, citing Comunidad en Accion v. Los Angeles City Council (2013) 219 Cal. App. 4th 1116, 1135 [Miscalendaring is considered excusable neglect]; Haviland v. Southern Cal. Edison Co. (1916) 172 Cal. 601, 604 [same]; Flores v. Board of Supervisors (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 480, 484; Flores v. Board of Supervisors (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 480, 484; Nilsson v. City of Los Angeles (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 976, 980).

In opposition, Plaintiff maintains that “Defendant Covina has a pattern and practice of unduly delaying and withholding discoverable information from not only Plaintiff, but even the Cross-Defendant, Sports Facilities…Defendant Covina did not make a mistake here as they had no intention of producing the discovery responses on May 9 nor May 16. They were looking to delay as long as possible and push out the date as to when thy would actually produce, this has been their modus perandi.” (Opp. p. 7:17-23.)

Here, as Plaintiff urges the court to “to the totality of the circumstances in this case” (Opp. p. 5:22), the court turns to its 1/21/22 tentative ruling because it contradicts Plaintiff’s contention that the District has engaged in bad faith (since the outset of litigation). As stated in the court’s tentative ruling on Defendant’s motion to compel discovery from Plaintiff despite three extensions, Plaintiff’s Counsel showed an appreciation for Defense Counsel’s “extreme[] patien[ce]” with the delays. What is more, as noted by the District, Sport’s Facilities Group never filed Motions to Compel on any set of discovery propounded to the District. Furthermore, to the extent that Plaintiff argues that Defendant “made up” the calendaring mistake (Opp. p. 6:11-13), Plaintiff’s own opposition appears to contend otherwise since she states that “it is not even clear what they thought the deadline was to produce the responses,” (Opp. p. 8:8-9), which inherently shows inadvertence/mistake.

Thus, as the District has showed a factual showing that the discovery date was inadvertently miscalendared as the District stated under oath that it was a calendaring mistake, then that is a sufficient reason to warrant relief.

As for whether the responses are in substantial compliance, “[a] test for substantial compliance is whether the moving party has demonstrated a willingness and ability to comply with the procedural requirements that led to the dismissal.” (See Reply p.1, citing Rodriguez v. Brill (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 715, 729.) With respect to document requests, “Any form of response…is permissible, i.e., answer, objection or election to allow inspection of records” to show grounds for relief from waiver. (Reply p. 1, citing Weil & Brown, et al., Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial (Rutter Group 2020) § 8:1035 [emphasis in original].) Here, as the District has served verified discovery responses and the responses contain both substantive responses and objections to Plaintiff’s initial discovery responses, the District has thus shown it has substantially complied with its discovery obligation. To the extent that Plaintiff argues that “substantial compliance with a statute is dependent on the meaning and purpose of the statute,” (Opp. p. 7, citing to St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 779), Plaintiff’s cases do not appear instructive as they do not deal with waiver from relief due to counsel’s mistake. For example, St. Mary involved a motion to deem all RFAs admitted and Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Board of Equalization (2013) 57 Cal.4th 401 involved compliance with regulations.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the motion is granted. (A proposed order has been filed.)