Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 22STCV22510, Date: 2024-10-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV22510    Hearing Date: October 8, 2024    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant The Chrysalis Center (“Defendant”) moves for an order relieving Defendant form the waiver of all objections resulting from the failure to timely serve responses to Form Interrogatories-General, (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Sets One and Two), and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) (together, the “Discovery Requests”) propounded by Plaintiff Albert Walker (“Plaintiff”).

The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion.

Background

This is an employment case brought under the Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”).

Plaintiff filed this action on July 12, 2022.

Plaintiff propounded the Discovery Requests on April 16, 2024.

On May 24, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel informed Defendant’s counsel that Defendant’s deadline to respond to the Discovery Requests had elapsed and requested that they advise whether Plaintiff would be receiving Defendant’s responses. Counsel for Defendant wrote back “[r]est assured, we have not responded to Plaintiff’s Discovery Requests/Demands”[.] (Gundzik Decl. Ex. D.)

On May 30, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel informed Defendant’s counsel that Defendant’s deadline to respond to the Discovery Requests was extended to June 20, 2024, but stating that Plaintiff nevertheless considered Defendant’s objections to the Discovery Requests to be waived. (Gundzik Decl. ¶ 9.)

On June 20, 2024, Defendant served responses to the Discovery Requests consisting exclusively of objections. (Gundzik Decl. ¶¶ 10-11.)

On July 1, 2024, Defendant served a second set of responses to the Discovery. (Gundzik Decl. ¶ 13.)

On July 30, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery and ordered Defendant to provide responses without objection to the Discovery.

Defendant moved for relief from waiver of its objections on August 28, 2024.

Legal Standard

            Responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents are due within 30 days of the service of the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.260, subd. (a), 2031.260, subd. (a).)

A party who fails to timely respond to requests for production of documents waives all objections to those requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) A party who fails to timely respond to interrogatories waives all objections to those interrogatories, as well as the option to produce writings in response. (Code Civ. Proc.,  § 2030.290.)

“The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:

(1) The party has subsequently served [substantially compliant responses].

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

(Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).)

“A mistake of fact is when a person understands the facts to be other than they are; a mistake of law is when a person knows the facts as they really are but has a mistaken belief as to the legal consequences of those facts.” (Baratti v. Baratti (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 917, 921.) “Inadvertence is defined as lack of heedfulness or attentiveness, inattention, fault from negligence.” (Ibid.) “The ‘surprise’ referred to in section 473 is defined to be some ‘condition or situation in which a party to a cause is unexpectedly placed to his injury, without any default or negligence of his own, which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against.’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.) “The ‘excusable neglect’ referred to in the section is that neglect which might have been the act of a reasonably prudent person under the same circumstances. [Citation.] A judgment will not ordinarily be vacated at the demand of a [party] who was either grossly negligent or changed his mind after the judgment.” (Ibid.)

Discussion

Defendant argues that its failure to provide timely responses was due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. Defendant argues that it failed to timely respond because Defendant’s counsel overlooked Plaintiff’s initial service email, a “minor mishap” that “was then exacerbated by a lack of communication between counsel for Defendant and Plaintiff’s various counsel.” (Opposition at p. 6:21-23.)

Defendant contends that “[t]he ambiguity regarding Plaintiff’s counsels’ various conditions on the extension added to this complication, and led directly to the instant situation.” (Opposition at p. 6:23-25.) Defendant argues that Defendant’s understanding at the time that the parties agreed to the extension was that Defendant’s objections were still available to it. (Pierce Decl. ¶ 5.)

The Court denies this motion because the Defendant has not adequately supported that its initial failure to respond to the discovery was the result of mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect.  The declaration of Peter Pierce submitted in support of the motion does not attempt to explain how or why that happened.  It does not say that there was a mistake in overlooking the initial service, as the brief asserts.  Moreover, the written email from Defendant states, “Rest assured, we have not responded to Plaintiff’s Discovery Requests/Demands, notwithstanding Deadlines(s).”  (Gundzik Decl. Ex. D.)  This sounds like it was an intentional choice by Defendant.  This statement remains unexplained in either the opening brief or reply brief.

Defendant spends most of its time arguing about the steps it took after it was informed that it blew the deadline.  This argument is beside the point, as Defendant has not met its burden as to why it missed the deadline in the first place.  Moreover, to the extent that the parties’ agreement reached after the missed deadline remains relevant, Plaintiff has the better argument. Plaintiff’s counsel’s statement in writing that Plaintiff considered the objections waived notwithstanding the extension made clear Plaintiff’s position that the stipulated extension did not relieve Defendant of any waiver of objections.

The Court therefore denies the motion.