Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 23STCV00542, Date: 2024-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV00542    Hearing Date: April 11, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s request for relief from waiver of objections is GRANTED.

On 1/10/2023, Plaintiff Synika Smith (Plaintiff) filed suit against Social Vocational Services, Inc., alleging: (1) discrimination; (2) retaliation; (3) failure to prevent discrimination; (4) declaratory judgment; (5) retaliation; (6) retaliation; (7) wrongful termination; (8) failure to pay wages; (9) failure to provide rest periods; (10) waiting time penalties; (11) unfair competition; (12) conversion; and (13) failure to provide itemized wage statement.

            On 2/29/2024, Plaintiff moved for relief from waiver of objections.

Discussion

            Plaintiff seeks relief from waiver of objections, contending that her failure to provide timely responses to Defendant’s discovery was the result of mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect, and because Plaintiff has subsequently served responses that are in substantial compliance with Sections 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, 2030.240, 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, 2031.240, 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230. 

            After review, the Court agrees that such relief is warranted.

CCP section 2030.290(a) states in relevant part:

(a)   The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writing under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both 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.

(2)  The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. CCP § 2030.290(a).

Here, Plaintiff has served responses in substantial compliance with sections 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240, and thus has satisfied the first prong. Second, Plaintiff submitted a declaration from counsel explaining that the email containing discovery was sent counsel’s spam folder. More specifically, counsel explains:

On December 27, 2023, Mr. Nicolas Tomas, counsel for Defendant, propounded written discovery via email to Plaintiff’s counsel. [Juarez-Munoz Decl., ¿ 5] This is the first email Mr. Tomas sent our office, and me personally, all other prior correspondence were from other attorneys and support staff from Defense counsel’s office. Mr. Tomas’s emails did not include Ms. Diaz, who previously had received all prior emails from Defense counsel’s office.

Tomas’ email included the discovery requests included in Defendant’s discovery motions to compel on calendar for June 10, June 11, June 12 (2x), and June 17, of 2024, a total of five motions, proposed orders, and request for sanctions. For some unknown reason, Mr. Tomas first email to me was sent to my email junk/spam folder and I never saw this email. [Juarez-Munoz Decl., ¿ 5] As a result, I was unaware of the requests and did not respond to them in a timely manner. [Juarez-Munoz Decl., ¿ 5.] Further, because Ms. Diaz was also not included in this email, despite our request that she be included in all correspondence on January 11, 2023, and previously included in all correspondence from Defense counsel’s office, she was not cc’d in Mr. Tomas’ December 27, 2023, email. [Juarez-Munoz Decl., ¿ 5.]

            (Motion, 7-15.)

Plaintiff’s counsel explained it was not until 2/7/2024 that counsel became aware that the due date to respond had passed, after an email was sent by Defendant’s counsel to both him and Ms. Diaz. (Juarez-Munoz Decl., ¿ 6.) Plaintiff provided responses to all outstanding discovery by 2/23/2024. Juarez-Munoz Decl., ¿ 7.)

            The Court finds Plaintiff’s evidence sufficient to show that the failure to timely serve responses was due to mistake and inadvertence, and thus the second prong is satisfied as well. (CCP (2030.290, subd. (a).)

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request for relief from waiver of objections is granted.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  April    , 2024

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.