Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 22STCV26362, Date: 2025-02-20 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Elevance Health, Inc., The Elevance Health Companies, Inc., The Elevance Health Companies of California, Inc., and Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”)

This matter arises out of an employment relationship. The first amended complaint (the “FAC”) alleges: (1) retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivisions (b) and (c); (2) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (3) violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200; (4) failure to provide personnel records in violation of Labor Code section 1198.5; (5) failure to provide wage statements in violation of Labor Code section 226, subdivision (b); (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (7) negligent infliction of emotional distress.

On January 23, 2025, Defendants filed the instant motion for relief from waiver (the “Motion”). On February 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed an opposition (the “Opposition”). On February 11, 2025, Defendants filed a reply (the “Reply”).

The trial court has broad discretion to grant relief from waiver of objections on a noticed motion upon determining that: (a) the moving party subsequently served discovery responses which are substantially code compliant; and (b) the moving party’s failure to timely serve responses “was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”), §§ 2030.290 subd. (a), 2031.300 subd. (a), and 2033.280 subd. (a).)

On September 23, 2022, Plaintiff served Requests for Production, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One to each of Elevance Health, The Elevance Health Companies, Inc., The Elevance Health Companies of California, Inc., and Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc. (Bui Decl., Ex. A.) On September 30, 2022, Defendants removed the matter to Federal Court, and filed a Notice of Stay of Proceedings. (Bui Decl., Ex. B.) On December 8, 2022, the Federal Court remanded the case. (Bui Decl., ¶ 5.) On March 6, 2023, the case was stayed pending resolution of the motion to compel arbitration. (Bui Decl., ¶ 8.) The Court of Appeal issued a remittitur on January 16, 2025. On January 23, 2025, Defendants served responses to the Requests for Production, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One. (Bui Decl., Ex. E.)

Defendants argue that the failure to timely respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect because Defendants are not aware of any authority holding that pre-removal discovery becomes effective upon remand and genuinely believed that they had a valid legal position. (Mot. pp. 5:26-8:9.)

In the Opposition, Plaintiff argues that once the case was remanded, the discovery deadlines were reinstated and that Defendants’ failure to timely respond is not excusable neglect. (Opp. pp. 5:13-7:2.)

Defendants’ responses to the discovery appear to be substantially code compliant. (Bui Decl., Ex. E.) Defendants’ failure to serve the responses in a timely manner appears to be due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect caused by the stays in this action and confusion regarding the impact of the remand to Federal Court on the discovery deadlines here. There is no apparent prejudice to Plaintiff as Defendants have since served the requested discovery. Thus, the Motion is GRANTED.

Defendants’ Motion for Relief from Waiver is GRANTED. Defendants are hereby relieved from their waiver of objections in response to Requests for Production, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One.

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.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court