Judge Donald F. Gaffney, Case Leonard v. Schreim 2022-10-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: Leonard v. Schreim, Date: 2022-10-19 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULINGS:

Motion for Relief from Waiver of Objections

Plaintiffs Brian Leonard and Shaina Leonard move for relief from the waiver of objections caused by Plaintiffs’ untimely responses to Defendants Ghassan Schreim and Lois Schreim’s discovery requests. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The failure to serve a timely response to interrogatories, requests for production of documents, or requests for admission results in a waiver of any objection to the request. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a), 2033.280(a).) However, the trial court can relieve a party from such a waiver if “both of the following conditions are satisfied:

“(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240 [interrogatories]; 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280 [requests for production]; and 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230 [requests for admission].

“(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.”

(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a), 2033.280(a).)

Plaintiffs’ counsel has provided evidence that Plaintiffs’ failure to serve a timely responses to the Schreim Defendants’ discovery was a result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Wiseman Decl. ¶ 7.) Plaintiffs’ counsel incorrectly calendared the due date for the discovery responses. (Wiseman Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.)

Plaintiffs failed to attach Exhibit 1, a true and correct copy of the Responses to Discovery, to the Declaration of Brett K. Wiseman. On September 28, 2022, the court ordered Plaintiffs to file a copy of Exhibit 1 no later than nine days before the continued hearing date. (09/28/22 Minute Order.) Plaintiffs have not filed Exhibit 1.

Defendant filed Plaintiff Brian Leonard’s Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One in connection with his Reply. (English Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. A.) These responses sufficiently comply with sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280. Plaintiffs’ motion for relief from waiver of objections as to Plaintiff Brian Leonard’s Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is granted. Plaintiff Brian Leonard shall produce documents and provide verified code-compliant responses to Defendant Schreim’s Requests for Production, Set One within 15 days of service of notice of ruling.

Without the remaining responses, the court cannot determine if Plaintiffs have served responses that are in substantial compliance with sections 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, 2030.240, 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280, 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230. Accordingly, the motion is denied as to Plaintiffs’ remaining discovery responses.

Plaintiffs to give notice.

Motion to Compel Plaintiff Brian Leonard to Respond to Form Interrogatories

Defendant Ghassan Schreim moves to compel Plaintiff Brian Leonard to Respond to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One. For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.

It is undisputed that Plaintiffs served responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories on June 6, 2022. (Reply at 2:23-24.) Plaintiffs’ responses served on June 6, 2022, are untimely.

Due to Plaintiff’s failure to serve timely responses to the requests, defendant has “waive[d] any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(a).) Plaintiff Brian Leonard shall provide responses, without objections, to Defendant Schreim’s Form Interrogatories, Set One by October 28, 2022.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is granted. Plaintiffs Brian and Shaina Leonard shall pay sanctions in the amount of $560.00 to Defendant Ghassan Schreim within 30 days of service of notice of ruling. (See, e.g., Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010(d), 2030.290(c).)

Defendant Ghassan Schreim to give notice.

Motion to Compel Shaina Leonard to Respond to Requests for Production

Defendant Ghassan Schreim moves to compel Plaintiff Shaina Leonard to Respond to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One. For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.

It is undisputed that Plaintiffs served responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories on June 6, 2022. (Reply at 2:23-24.) Plaintiffs’ responses served on June 6, 2022, are untimely.

Due to Plaintiff’s failure to serve timely responses to the requests, Plaintiff has “waive[d] any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(a).) Plaintiff Shaina Leonard shall produce documents and provide verified responses, without objections, to Defendant Schreim’s Requests for Production, Set One within 15 days of service of notice of ruling.

Defendant Ghassan Schreim to give notice.

Motion to Compel Plaintiff Shaina Leonard to Respond to Form Interrogatories

Defendant Ghassan Schreim moves to compel Plaintiff Shaina Leonard to Respond to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One. For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.

It is undisputed that Plaintiffs served responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories on June 6, 2022. (Reply at 2:23-24.) Plaintiffs’ responses served on June 6, 2022, are untimely.

Due to Plaintiff’s failure to serve timely responses to the requests, defendant has “waive[d] any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(a).) Plaintiff Shaina Leonard shall provide responses, without objections, to Defendant Schreim’s Form Interrogatories, Set One by October 28, 2022.

Defendant Ghassan Schreim to give notice.

Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted

Defendant Ghassan Schreim moves to compel Plaintiffs Brian Leonard and Shaina Leonard to respond to Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One. Defendant also moves to deem Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted. For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.

Defendant’s request to compel Plaintiffs’ responses to Requests for Admission is not an available form of relief under the Discovery Act. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.) The motion is denied to the extent it seeks to compel Plaintiffs to respond to Requests for Admissions, Set One.

Although it is undisputed that Plaintiffs served responses to Defendant’s Requests for Admission on June 6, 2022 (Reply at 2:23-24), Plaintiffs did not file a copy of their responses. Accordingly, the court cannot determine if Plaintiffs served responses that are in substantial compliance with section 2033.220. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.) The motion to deem Requests for Admissions, Set One, admitted is granted.

Pursuant to section 2033.280(c), “[i]t is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated” the motion. Accordingly, because Plaintiffs’ failure to serve timely responses to Defendant’s Requests for Admission caused the filing of the instant motion, the court grants Defendant’s request for sanctions in the amount of $560.00. Plaintiffs Brian and Shaina Leonard shall pay the sanctions to Defendant Ghassan Schreim within 30 days of service of notice of ruling.

Defendant Ghassan Schreim to give notice.