Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV36798, Date: 2023-08-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV36798    Hearing Date: August 21, 2023    Dept: 32

            On March 10, 2023, GM was served with Request for Admissions, Set One, and a Demand for Inspection and Copying, Set One.  The responses to the Request for Admissions and Demand for Inspection and Copying were due on April 14, 2023. GM did not provide responses on April 14, 2023.   Plaintiff filed these motions concerning this discovery on June 30, 2023.

The facts clearly establish that GM’s failure to respond was an innocent oversight by GM.  While plaintiff was not required to notify GM of this oversight before filing these motions, the court finds that the motions would have been unnecessary if plaintiff would have merely contacted GM before filing these motions. 

The court denies Plaintiff’s motion to deem the truth of matters specified in requests for admission, admitted and conclusively established.  The court finds that GM has provided responses that substantially comply with California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2033.280.    The court also finds that GM’s failure to serve timely responses resulted from mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, and as such, GM’s objections have not been waived.

The court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to plaintiff’s request for production of documents.  If GM wishes to serve additional responses, it shall do so within 20 days of this order.  If Plaintiff is not satisfied with the responses provided by GM, Plaintiff may file a motion to compel further responses after a good faith meet and confer has been conducted.  As stated previously, the court also finds that GM’s failure to serve timely responses resulted from mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, and as such, GM’s objections have not been waived.

The Court finds that sanctions are not warranted in this matter.