Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 21STCV06259, Date: 2023-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV06259    Hearing Date: April 18, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs

            RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant

The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs’ complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges violations of the Song-Beverly Act that arise out of the purchase of an allegedly defective vehicle manufactured by Defendant.  On February 23, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from waiver of objections (the “Motion”) on the grounds that their failure to submit timely responses to Defendant’s discovery requests was due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

DISCUSSION

            Under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 2030.290, subdivision (a), where a party who is served interrogatories fails to serve a timely response, the party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product.  (CCP 2030.290, subd. (a).) A party may be relieved from waiver with respect to interrogatories where the party has served a subsequent response that is in substantial compliance and the failure to serve a timely response was due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.  (CCP § 2030.290, subd. (a)(1)-(2).) 

Where a party is served a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling and fails to serve a timely response to that demand, the party to whom the demand is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product.  (CCP § 2031.300, subd. (a).)  To relieve a party from a waiver to objections with respect to requests for production the party must: (1) subsequently serve a response that is in substantial compliance; and (2) show that the party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.  (CCP § 2031.300, subd. (a)(1)-(2).)

Where a party is served with requests for admission but fails to serve a timely response, the party to whom the requests for admission were directed waives an objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product.  (CCP § 2033.280, subd. (a).)  To obtain a waiver to objections to requests for admission, the party seeking the waiver must show that: (1) the party served a response that is in substantial compliance with CCP sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230; and (2) the party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.  (CCP § 2033.280, subd. (a)(1)-(2).)  

            The standard used to analyze mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect for relief from default set forth in CCP section 473 also applies to failure to serve a timely response to a discovery demand.  (City of Fresno v. Superior Court (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1459, 1467.)  In determining whether the attorney’s mistake or inadvertence was excusable, the court inquires whether a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances might have made the same error.  (Comunidad en Accion v. Los Angeles City Council (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1132.)  Relevant factors in assessing counsel’s error include: (1) the nature of the mistake or neglect; and (2) whether counsel was otherwise diligent in investigating and pursuing the claim.  (See Huh v. Wang (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1423.) 

Plaintiffs were served with the discovery requests at issue in the Motion on May 4, 2022, and pursuant to an agreement with Defendant, Plaintiffs’ responses were due on June 16, 2022.  (Declaration of Mani Arabi (“Arabi Decl.”) ¶¶ 3-4.)  Due to an oversight, Plaintiffs’ counsel’s law clerk incorrectly noted that Plaintiffs’ responses had been submitted.  (See Arabi Decl. ¶ 6.)  On January 17, 2023, when Defendant’s counsel notified Plaintiffs’ counsel that Plaintiffs’ responses were missing, Defendant agreed to allow Plaintiffs to submit responses by February 3, 2023.  (Arabi Decl. ¶ 7, Exhibit 1.)  Plaintiffs provided responses on February 3, 2023,  and submitted verifications on February 8, 2023.  (Paradi Decl. ¶¶ 8-9, Exhibits 2-3.) 

The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ responses are substantially compliant with the relevant CCP provisions and that the failure to timely provide responses was due to the mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect of their counsel.  The Court therefore GRANTS the Motion.

             Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court¿strongly¿encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.¿¿If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to¿SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org¿stating your intention to appear in person.¿ The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date.¿ This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

           Dated this 18th day of April 2023