Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 24STCV11017, Date: 2025-02-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV11017    Hearing Date: February 25, 2025    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Equity Residential Management, LLC (“Equity”) moves for relief from waiver of objections to the Form Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Request for Production of Documents, Set One propounded by Plaintiff Cheryl Richards (“Plaintiff”).

The Court DENIES the motion.

Background

This is a landlord-tenant case.

From September 2020 to April 2024, Plaintiff lived as a tenant at an apartment owned by Defendant The Cleo Apartments (“Cleo”) and managed by Equity.

Plaintiff alleges that Equity failed to provide a habitable apartment by failing to maintain sanitary conditions.

Plaintiff alleges that Equity failed to relocate another resident who had an altercation with Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that Equity violated the Los Angeles City Eviction Moratorium and other federal, state, county, and local laws.

Plaintiff filed this action on May 2, 2024. The operative complaint is now the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”).

On August 2, 2024, Plaintiff propounded the discovery that is at issue.

On September 6, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel contacted Equity’s counsel, noting that Equity had failed to provide responses by the September 4, 2024 deadline and requesting objection-free responses by September 13, 2024. (Sawyer Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. 1.)

On September 9, 2024, Equity’s counsel requested a 30-day extension to serve the responses, but not contesting that its objections had been waived. (Sawyer Decl. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff’s counsel granted an extension to October 9, 2024 to provide objection-free responses. (Sawyer Decl. ¶ 12, Ex. 1.)

On October 8, 2024, Equity’s counsel requested an extension to October 23, 2024, which Plaintiff’s counsel granted. (Sawyer Decl. ¶ 14, Ex. 2.)

On October 23, 2024, Equity served its responses to the discovery at issues. The discovery responses included objections. (See Rivera Decl., Ex. 6.) The parties’ attorneys met and conferred regarding the adequacy of the responses.

On December 20, 2024, Equity served further discovery responses. (Sawyer Decl. ¶ 19.) Also on December 20, 2024, Equity’s counsel sent Plaintiff’s counsel a meet and confer letter stating that Equity intended to move for relief from waiver of its objections. Counsels for the parties met and conferred.

On January 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed three separate motions to compel further responses with respect to the discovery at issue.

Equity filed this motion on January 13, 2025. Plaintiff filed an opposition and Equity filed a reply.

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

Equity contends that its delay in response resulted from confusion within the office of defense counsel. On August 2, 2024, Plaintiff emailed the discovery to counsel for Equity, Vivian I. Rivera’s email address, but not to Rivera’s assistant or to the law firm’s dedicated email address for service. On August 6, 2024, Rivera emailed the discovery to her assistant, who mistakenly calendared the discovery as though it had been served on August 6 instead of August 2. Thus, the due date was inadvertently listed as September 9, 2024.

The Court does not grant relief from waiver here. The calendaring mistake at most explains the delay to September 9, 2024 (although Plaintiff’s counsel’s September 6, 2024 email stating that the discovery responses were late would typically be expected to prompt a responsive email sooner). But Equity did not have its responses prepared by September 9, 2024. Nor did it have its responses prepared on October 9, 2024 following the 30-day extension. Equity did not serve its initial responses until October 23, 2024, roughly two and a half months after the discovery was initially served. In its responses, Equity simultaneously denied ownership of the subject property (Sawyer Decl., Ex. 3 at Special Interrogatory No. 1) and claimed to be the owner and manager of the property for the purposes of litigation (Sawyer Decl., Ex. 3 at Special Interrogatory Nos. 4, 5). Equity subsequently served supplemental responses which themselves are now the subject of several motions to compel further.

Deferring for the motions to compel further the question of whether the supplemental responses are now adequate, the Court does not believe that Equity’s extensive delay can be explained solely by mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. Equity has at most supported a delay of three days – not of a month and a half for initial responses and another two months for supplemental responses.

The Court denies the motion.