Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: Leonard v. Shreim, Date: 2022-12-14 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING:

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.

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.)

On September 26, 2022 (by way of a Notice of Errata), Plaintiffs filed: (1) Plaintiff Brian Leonard’s Responses to Form Interrogatories—Construction Litigation Propounded by Defendant Ghassan Schreim, Set One; (2) Plaintiff Brian Leonard’s Responses to Form Interrogatories—Construction Litigation Propounded by Defendant Lois Schreim, Set One; (3) Plaintiff Brian Leonard’s Responses to Requests for Admission Propounded by Defendant Ghassan Schreim, Set One; (4) Plaintiff Brian Leonard’s Responses to Requests for Admission Propounded by Defendant Lois Schreim, Set One; (5) Plaintiff Brian Leonard’s Responses to Requests for Production of Documents Propounded by Defendant Ghassan Schreim, Set One; (6) Plaintiff Brian Leonard’s Responses to Requests for Production of Documents Propounded by Defendant Lois Schreim, Set One; (7) Plaintiff Shaina Leonard’s Responses to Form Interrogatories—Construction Litigation Propounded by Defendant Ghassan Schreim, Set One; (8) Plaintiff Shaina Leonard’s Responses to Form Interrogatories—Construction Litigation Propounded by Defendant Lois Schreim, Set One; (9) Plaintiff Shaina Leonard’s Responses to Requests for Admission Propounded by Defendant Ghassan Schreim, Set One; (10) Plaintiff Shaina Leonard’s Responses to Requests for Admission Propounded by Defendant Lois Schreim, Set One; (11) Plaintiff Shaina Leonard’s Responses to Requests for Production of Documents Propounded by Defendant Ghassan Schreim, Set One; and (12) Plaintiff Shaina Leonard’s Responses to Requests for Production of Documents Propounded by Defendant Lois Schreim, Set One.

The responses sufficiently comply with Code of Civil Procedure 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].

Plaintiffs’ motion for relief from waiver of objections is GRANTED as to the discovery responses submitted in ROA No. 162. Plaintiffs Brian Leonard and Shaina Leonard shall provide verified code-compliant responses to Defendant Ghassan Schreim’s and Defendant Lois Schreim’s Form Interrogatories—Construction Litigation, Set One; Requests for Admission, Set One; and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One within 15 days of service of notice of ruling.

The discovery responses must be served/re-served because the service on 6/6/22 was done before the filing or granting of the instant motion.  Thus, service/re-service of the discovery responses will allow the 45-day deadline to bring a motion to compel further responses to begin anew.

In light of the above ruling, the motions to compel discovery responses and to deem Requests for Admissions admitted are all denied as moot.  All related requests for sanctions are also denied.

Plaintiffs to give notice.