Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: Leonard v. Shreim, Date: 2022-09-28 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 Shreim and Lois Shreim’s discovery requests. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ motion is CONTINUED to October 19, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. in Department N16.

A.   Relevant Facts

On or about February 16, 2022, Defendants served a set of discovery requests each on Plaintiffs Brian Leonard and Shaina Leonard. Plaintiffs failed to respond.

On April 19, 2022, Defendants Ghassan Shreim and Lois Shreim moved to compel responses to the discovery. (ROA Nos. 66, 71, 76, and 77.)

On June 6, 2022, Plaintiffs served responses to the outstanding discovery requests. (English Decl. ¶ 3 [ROA No. 156].) Plaintiffs’ discovery responses contain objections. (English Decl. at ¶ 4, Ex. A.)

On 06/22/22, the Court granted Defendant Ghassan Shreim’s motion to compel Plaintiff Brian Leonard to provide responses to Defendant’s first set of requests for production and ordered Plaintiff Brian Leonard to provide responses without objection within 30 days of service of notice of the Court’s ruling. (ROA No. 131.)

On July 6, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for relief from waiver of objections.

B.   Merits

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 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280.

“(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 Shreim 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, however, failed to attach Exhibit 1, a true and correct copy of the Responses to Discovery, to the Declaration of Brett K. Wiseman. Without the responses, the Court cannot determine if Plaintiffs have served a response that is in substantial compliance with sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280.

Plaintiffs are ordered to file a copy of Exhibit 1 no later than nine (9) court days before the continued hearing date. No further briefing is permitted.

Plaintiffs to give notice.

Motion to Compel Plaintiff Brian Leonard to Respond to Form Interrogatories; Motion to Compel Plaintiff Shaina Leonard to Respond to Requests for Production; Motion to Compel Plaintiff Shaina Leonard to Respond to Form Interrogatories; Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted

Defendant Ghassan Shreim’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Brian Leonard to Respond to Form Interrogatories; Motion to Compel Plaintiff Shaina Leonard to Respond to Requests for Production; Motion to Compel Plaintiff Shaina Leonard to Respond to Form Interrogatories; Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted are CONTINUED to October 19, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. in Department N16.

No further briefing is permitted.

Plaintiffs to give notice.