Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: "Conti vs. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC", Date: 2022-07-18 Tentative Ruling

Before the court are three motions by plaintiff Alexander L. Conti (“plaintiff”) to compel discovery responses from defendant Jaguar Land Rover Mission Viejo (“JLRMV”).

On 6/30/2021, plaintiff propounded the first sets of Form Interrogatories (“FROGS”), Special Interrogatories (“SROGS”), Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPS”) and Requests for Admissions (“RFAS”), to JLRMV. Responses were due on 8/3/2021. (Castruita Decl. ¶3)

With enduring professionally courtesy, plaintiff granted eight extensions to JLRMV to provide discovery responses, to no avail until the present motions to compel were filed.

As all three motions presently before the court sought initial discovery responses rather than further responses, plaintiff did not have to comply with the meet and confer requirement. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404)

On 6/10/2022, plaintiff’s counsel spoke with defense counsel regarding the failure to respond to discovery and to find out which counsel was representing the dealership as there had been some substitutions of counsel shortly before responses were due. (Castruita Decl. ¶¶4, 13-15)

When the motions were filed on 6/29/2021, JLRV still had not served responses to any of plaintiff’s discovery.

Finally, the day before JLRV filed its opposition, responses were served, leaving but a few matters left for the court to resolve.

With respect to all three motions, because JLRMV failed to serve timely responses, all objections including based on privilege or protection for work product were waived. (See CCP §§2033.280(a), 2030.290(a), and 2031.300 (a))

JLRMV did not request relief from the waiver of objections in any of its oppositions.  Even if JLRMV had moved for such relief, it has not shown that the untimely responses were due to mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect. (See CCP §§2033.280(a), 2030.290(a), and 2031.300 (a)). JLRMV provided no explanation as to why after plaintiff graciously granted eight extensions JLRMV waited until the eve before its opposition was due to serve the long overdue discovery responses. That there were two substitutions of counsel in 9 months does not establish mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect.

Motion 1: (ROA #55) Requests for Admission

Because JLRMV served, before the hearing, what the parties seem to agree were substantially compliant responses to the first set of RFAS, the motion to deem RFAS admitted is DENIED.  (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 776, 778)

However, the court GRANTS the SANCTIONS request as set forth below.

Motion 2: (ROA # 77) Interrogatories

Per plaintiff’s separate statement in support of the reply brief, the only interrogatories still at issue are FROGS Nos. 1.1 and 3.6 and SROGS No. 45.

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. JLRMV is ordered to serve further, verified, code compliant responses, without objection to FROGS 1.1, 3.6 and SROGS No. 45 within 10 days from the date of the hearing. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 395-396)

Motion 3: (ROA # 67) Requests for Production of Documents

Per plaintiff’s separate statement in support of the reply brief, the only RFPS still at issue are Nos. 5, 8, 10, 19. 20, 21, and 23.

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. JLRMV is ordered to serve further, verified, code-compliant responses, without objection, and produce all responsive documents within 10 days from the date of the hearing.

Sanctions

JLRMV and its counsel, Turner, Henningsen, Wolf & VanDenburg, LLP are ordered to pay a total of $3500 in monetary sanctions to plaintiff no later than August 15, 2022.

Plaintiff is ordered to give Notice of Ruling.