Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 21STCV43179, Date: 2022-10-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV43179    Hearing Date: October 12, 2022    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On November 10, 2020, Plaintiff Ammco Ornamental Iron, Inc. filed this action against Defendants Jennifer Messer, TNT Simmonds, and J. Alexander Co., asserting causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) foreclosure of mechanic’s lien, (3) violation of Civil Code section 8800, (4) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (5) common counts.

The complaint arises from unpaid work that Plaintiff, a contractor, performed on the home of Defendant Messer. Plaintiff contracted with Defendants TNT Simmonds and J. Alexander Company to serve as a contractor for the fabrication and erection of structural steel for the build. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks foreclosure of the property and associated damages.

On September 15, 2022, Defendant Messer filed the instant motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to document requests and interrogatories, and to deem requests for admission admitted.   

LEGAL STANDARD

            Discovery responses are due 30 days after service of the requests, unless the parties stipulate or the court orders otherwise. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260(a), 2031.260(a), 2033.250(a).) If a responding party fails to respond in time, the propounding party may move for an order compelling the responses or deeming matters admitted. (Id., §§ 2030.290(b), 2031.300(b), 2033.280(b).)

DISCUSSION

            It is undisputed that Defendant served her discovery requests on June 17, 2022 and that Plaintiff has to date not provided any responses. (Sohi Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.) However, the parties had agreed to conduct an informal pre-mediation exchange of documents. (Marks Decl., Ex. A, pp. 1-4.) There appears to have been a misunderstanding on the part of Plaintiff’s counsel that the informal pre-mediation exchange would obviate the need for formal discovery. (Id., pp. 5-6.) Defendant clarified that she was proceeding with formal discovery. (Ibid.) From August 4 to August 18, the parties were in the process of circulating a draft stipulation for discovery. (Id., pp. 14-24.) Plaintiff’s counsel did not immediately see Defendant’s August 18 email because he was travelling on that date, which he had informed defense counsel of beforehand. (Id., p. 20.)

            The evidence indicates that there was no bad faith avoidance of discovery. There was a misunderstanding, after which the parties began working towards a stipulation until Plaintiff’s counsel had to travel cross country. This conduct does not warrant sanctions. Additionally, objections are not waived if Plaintiff serves a substantially compliant response, and the failure to timely respond was due to mistake or excusable neglect. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(a).)

CONCLUSION

            Defendant Messer’s motion to compel discovery responses is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to provide responses within 10 days. Objections are not waived. Sanctions are denied as the parties acted with substantial justification.