Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 21STCV01757, Date: 2023-05-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV01757    Hearing Date: May 19, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On January 15, 2021, Plaintiff Madison Vanderberg filed this lemon law action against Defendant Kia Motors America, Inc., alleging breach of warranty in violation of the Song-Beverly Act and fraud by omission. The operative First Amended Complaint was filed on February 10, 2023. The fraud claim has been stricken on demurrer.

             Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s written discovery were initially due in December 2021, but due to a clerical error, Plaintiff did not serve her responses until April 2022. The parties met and conferred regarding the responses, and Plaintiff served supplemental responses in December 2022 and March 2023.

            On April 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for relief from waiver of objections due to her untimely responses.  

LEGAL STANDARD

            A party who fails to timely respond to discovery waives any objection, but upon motion, the Court may relieve the party from waiver if it finds that the party has subsequently served a response that is substantially code-compliant and the untimely response was due to mistake or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.280.)  

DISCUSSION

            It is undisputed that Plaintiff’s responses were untimely because she failed to serve them by the December 6, 2021, deadline or December 22, 2021 extension. (Arabi Decl. ¶¶ 4, 8.) Plaintiff’s lead attorney at the time relied on a law clerk to send the responses, but the law clerk never did. (Id., ¶ 5.) Plaintiff’s current counsel was notified of the overdue responses on April 9, 2022, and served the responses on April 20, 2022. (Id., ¶¶ 7-8.) Plaintiff has since served supplemental responses on December 2, 2022, and March 20, 2023. (Id., ¶¶ 11-12.)

            The above facts demonstrate that Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond was due to mistake or excusable neglect. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s responses are not substantially compliant because “[t]hey are not full, complete and straightforward responses, but rather sloppy and evasive refences to thousands of documents that do not comply with the requirements necessary to refer to document productions.” (Opp. 5:10-12.) However, Defendant does not specify which responses are defective in this way. A review of Plaintiff’s responses shows that Plaintiff provided substantive answers. (See Plntf.’s Ex. 2-5.) The Court finds that Plaintiff’s responses and supplemental responses are substantially compliant. Therefore, relief is warranted.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion for relief from waiver of objections is GRANTED.