Judge Gregory Keosian, Case 20STCV41014 2023-05-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 20STCV41014, Date: 2023-05-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV41014 Hearing Date: May 3, 2023 Dept: 61

Plaintiff Richard De La Torre’s Motion for Relief from Waiver of Discovery Objections is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s responses to requests for production and requests for admission, but DENIED as to Plaintiff’s responses to form and special interrogatories.

Plaintiff to provide notice.

I. MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM WAIVER

Although untimely responses to discovery generally waives all objections thereto, a party may file a motion seeking relief from waiver if the following conditions are met:

(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with [applicable code provisions].

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

(Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, subd. (a)(1), (2); 2031.300, subd. (a)(1), (2).)

“Substantial compliance ... means actual compliance in respect to the substance essential to every reasonable objective of the statute.” (North Pacifica LLC v. California Coastal Com. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1416, 1432.)

Plaintiff Richard De La Torre (Plaintiff) moves for relief from waiver of objections based on the following facts. Plaintiff received discovery requests — Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admission — from Defendant Kia Motors America (Defendant) on May 16, 2022, with the responses due on June 17, 2022. (Arabi Decl. ¶¶ 3–4.) Plaintiff’s counsel instructed a law clerk to prepare drafts of responses and submit for approval, and the law clerk marked the task as “complete” even though they were not submitted for service. (Arabi Decl. ¶ 6.) Defendant notified Plaintiff of the missing discovery on January 24, 2023, and Plaintiff served responses on March 1, 2023, with verifications on March 6, 2023. (Arabi Decl. ¶¶ 8–9.) Thus Plaintiff argues that it was clerical error that caused the failure to serve timely responses, and the failure has been rectified with substantially compliant responses. (Motion at pp. 2–5.)

Defendant in opposition argues that Plaintiff has not demonstrated excusable neglect sufficient to establish relief from waiver, as Defendant notified Plaintiff of missing responses two weeks after they were due, on June 30, 2022, an overture that earned no response. (Redfern Decl. ¶¶ 4–5.) Defendant also argues that Plaintiff has twice cited law clerk error as a justification for relief from waiver in two other cases. (Redfern Decl. ¶ 12.) Additionally, Defendant argues that the responses that have since been served are not in substantial compliance with the code, as Plaintiff makes broad reference to Plaintiff’s document production under Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.230 without identifying the relevant documents, and when the documents are not in the equal possession of the parties. (Opposition at pp. 5–6.)

Plaintiff has demonstrated excusable neglect for the purposes of Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2030.290 and 2031.300. The failure to serve timely responses was due to a law clerk’s erroneous entry in a task progress monitor. Defendant’s subsequent email in June 2022 occurred after waiver had already occurred, and does not vitiate this explanation.

However, the court agrees with Defendant’s characterization of Plaintiff’s belated responses, specifically the responses to Form and Special Interrogatories, which are not in substantial compliance with statutory requirements. In responding to this discovery, Plaintiff over-relies on Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.230, which states as follows:

If the answer to an interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the party to whom the interrogatory is directed, and if the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the party propounding the interrogatory as for the responding party, it is a sufficient answer to that interrogatory to refer to this section and to specify the writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained. This specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained. The responding party shall then afford to the propounding party a reasonable opportunity to examine, audit, or inspect these documents and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries of them.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.230.)

Here, Plaintiff invokes the section, usually to refer only to “documents produced in connection with Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One.” (Redfern Decl. Exh. D.) At other times, Plaintiff does not narrow the scope of this reference, but rather broadens it to include “documents produced” in other class action litigations. (Ibid.) The invocation of section 2030.230 often accompanies a conclusory statement of responsive facts, but at other times is the core of Plaintiff’s response, with no other facts provided. These responses are not in substantial compliance with Plaintiff’s statutory obligations.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s responses to requests for production and requests for admission, but DENIED as to Plaintiff’s responses to form and special interrogatories.