Judge Jill Feeney, Case 21STCV14145 2022-10-20 Tentative Ruling

This is an action for negligence and motor vehicle negligence arising from a car accident which took place in May 2019. Plaintiff Melody Javaheri filed her Complaint against Defendant Molly Long on April 13, 2021.

On August 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed motions to compel Defendant’s responses to discovery requests. The motions are set to be heard in November and December 2022.

Defendant seeks relief from waiver of objections to Plaintiff’s discovery requests on the grounds that the requests were served directly on Defendant, without courtesy copies to Defendant’s counsel.

Plaintiff argues that her counsel never received communications that Defendant was represented by counsel before Defendant answered the Complaint. Plaintiff argues that she acted in good faith by allowing Defendant ample opportunity to respond to the discovery requests past the response deadline.

Defendant argues Plaintiff’s counsel was aware she was represented. Defendant’s counsel sent two letters to Plaintiff’s counsel to inform him that Defendant was represented.

If a party to whom requests for production of documents, interrogatories, or requests for admissions are directed fails to serve a timely response, the party waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege. (Code Civ. Proc., sections 2031.300, 2030.290, and 2033.280.)

However, a party may be relieved of that waiver if “(1) [t]he party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with [the Discovery Act]” and “(2) [t]he party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Id., subds. (a)(1)-(2).)

The Civil Discovery Act does not include a definition of “substantial compliance,” and few cases have addressed the circumstances under which a response will be deemed not in substantial compliance. (See St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 778 (St. Mary).) Substantial compliance means actual compliance with respect to the substance essential to every reasonable objective of the statute. (Id. at p. 790.) However, substantial compliance should not be understood as requiring actual compliance with every specific statutory requirement. (Ibid.)

A court may not find that only some portions of a document containing responses are code-compliant, but must instead determine whether the document as whole substantially complies. (Ibid. [this position is supported by the fact that there is an effective statutory vehicle to compel a responding party to cure unsatisfactory responses].)

The statutory language “mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect” in the discovery statute should be interpreted using the same general principles developed in application of the identical language in section 473, subdivision (b). (Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 263, 275.) Although the party moving for relief under section 473 has the burden to show that the mistake, inadvertence, or neglect was excusable, any doubts as to that showing must be resolved in favor of the moving party. (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1420.)

Defendant seeks relief from waiver of objections to Plaintiff’s discovery requests on the grounds that Plaintiff inadvertently failed to inform her counsel of the discovery requests after they were served directly on Plaintiff without her counsel’s knowledge.

Plaintiff filed her Complaint on April 13, 2021. Defendant’s counsel testifies that he sent Plaintiff’s counsel letters on October 26, 2020 and January 27, 2021 informing him that Defendant was represented by counsel. (Trafton Decl., ¶3.) Plaintiff then served Defendant with the complaint on June 14, 2022. (Id., ¶¶4-5.) Plaintiff then served discovery requests on defendant personally on June 24, 2022. Defendant received the discovery requests, believed they were duplicate service papers of the summons and complaint, and did not provide the requests to her attorney. (Long Decl., ¶¶2-3.)

On July 7, 2022, Defendant answered the Complaint. Defendant’s counsel sent another letter to Plaintiff’s counsel informing him that Defendant filed an answer and requesting that Defendant Doreen Long be dismissed. (Trafton Decl., ¶6.) Plaintiff’s counsel sent emails regarding proof of service of the answer and discovery requests but did not state discovery requests had already been served on Defendant. (Id., ¶7.) The first indication Defendant’s counsel had of outstanding discovery requests was when he received Plaintiff’s motions to compel on August 11, 2022. (Id., ¶9.) Defendant served verified responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests on September 9, 2022. (Id., ¶13.)

In opposition, Plaintiff’s counsel testifies that he never received any communication from Defendant’s counsel before Defendant answered on July 7, 2022. (Artinian Decl., ¶6.) Plaintiff’s counsel alleges that he gave Defendant ample opportunity to respond to the discovery requests beyond the original response deadline and that Defendant failed to respond or ask for additional time to provide responses. (Id., ¶¶7-8.)

It appears Defendant’s discovery responses were late because Defendant mistakenly believed the discovery requests to be duplicates of the summons and Complaint and did not provide them to her attorney. The parties do not dispute that Defendant served verified responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests and that the responses are substantially compliant with the Discovery Act. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is granted.

It appears Plaintiff’s counsel had ample opportunity to resolve this discovery dispute. An examination of the October 26, 2020 and January 27, 2021 letters Defendant’s counsel allegedly mailed to Plaintiff’s counsel shows that the address, name, and phone number of Plaintiff’s counsel are correct. Even if Plaintiff’s counsel did not receive the letters, Plaintiff became aware that Defendant was represented by counsel and began actively communicating with Defendant’s counsel shortly after Defendant answered the Complaint on July 7, 2022, yet no mention of the outstanding discovery requests was made to Defendant’s counsel until Plaintiff served this motion.