Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 22STCV39032, Date: 2023-11-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV39032    Hearing Date: November 28, 2023    Dept: 76

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1), the Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed herein.  Counsel must contact the staff in Department 76 to inform the Court whether they wish to submit on the tentative, or to argue the matter.  As required by Rule 3.1308(a), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 of their intent to appear and argue.

Notice to Department 76 may be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org or telephonically at 213-830-0776.

Per Rule of Court 3.1308, if notice of intention to appear is not given, the Court may adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Tristan Ibanez sexually harassed and sexually battered Plaintiff while they were at work, but Defendant Del Taco retaliated against Plaintiff for reporting this conduct to HR by terminating Plaintiff.  

Defendant Del Taco LLC and Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. moves for relief pursuant to CCP § 473.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Del Taco LLC and Del Taco Restaurants, Inc.’s motion for relief pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code, § 473 is DENIED.

ANALYSIS

Motion For Relief  

Pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code, § 473, Defendant Del Taco LLC and Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. moves for relief from waiver of objections due to the failure to provide timely responses to written discovery. Defendant argues that its counsel was dealing with the unexpected death of a close family member, which caused him to miss the deadline to respond.  

            As Plaintiff correctly points out, relief pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code, § 473 is not applicable to relief from waiver in the context of discovery; rather, the specific provisions which pertain to the discovery method at issue govern:

At the outset, we note that Scottsdale is correct in concluding that its sole remedy for relief from waiver in the context of discovery is contained within the provisions of the [Civil Discovery] Act and it cannot rely upon the provisions of section  [*275]  473. (Zellerino v. Brown (1991) 235 Cal. App. 3d 1097, 1104 [1 Cal. Rptr. 2d 222].)

(Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 263, 274-75 [bold emphasis and underlining added].)

            As such, the motion for relief pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code, § 473 is DENIED. Section 473 is not an all purpose statute for relief from all forms of error.  Where specific statutes have their own procedures for relief, those procedures must apply.  To the extent that Defendants wish to seek relief under the Discovery Act (and based on the showing made here, there may well be a basis for such relief), Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 provides a specific procedure for doing so, which includes a requirement that the party seeking relief serve "substantially compliant" proposed discovery responses.   Thus, denial of this motion as an improvident use of section 473(b) is not just a formalistic application of statute--the requirements of an applicable statute of specific application have not been met.

            Further, Defendants’ objection on the ground that Plaintiff is impermissibly seeking discovery pertaining to Del Taco’s net worth is properly asserted by way of a motion for protective order pursuant to Civil Code, § 3295.