Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV09459, Date: 2023-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV09459    Hearing Date: January 31, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

          On July 16, 2020, Plaintiff Robyn Roth (“Plaintiff”) brought this action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Valerie Chow (“Defendant”).  Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s negligence caused on automobile accident at the intersection of Silver Lake Blvd. and Bellevue Ave. on March 18, 2019.

On July 1, 2022, Plaintiff propounded Form Interrogatories, Set Two, Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Request for Production of Documents on Defendant. On January 13, 2023, Defendant filed this motion seeking relief from waiver of objections.  The motion is unopposed.

Relief From Waiver of Objections

“If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:

(a) The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings 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 of 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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290.)

Likewise, “[i]f a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply:

(a) The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, 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 of the following conditions are satisfied:

(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.

280.

(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300.)

Discussion

On July 1, 2022, Plaintiff propounded Form Interrogatories, Set Two, Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Request for Production of Documents on Defendant. (Hovsepian Decl., ¶ 2.) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.260 and 2031.260, Defendant had until August 1, 2022 to respond. Nevertheless, Defendant did not serve responses to Plaintiff’s requests until November 1, 2022. (Id., ¶ 3.)

However, the responses Defendant served are in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230 and 2030.240. (Hovsepian Decl., ¶¶ 4-5, Exs. 1-2.) Furthermore, Defendant offers a declaration from lead counsel who concedes he missed Defendant’s deadline to respond (Liebhaber Decl., ¶ 14), but provides substantial explanation for the mistake. In particular, lead counsel for Defendant was down two associates at the time and had a very busy trial schedule. (Id., ¶¶ 9-12.) The Court is satisfied with counsel’s explanation—especially considering the responses were only a few months late and Plaintiff does not appear to be prejudiced. In fact, Plaintiff does not oppose this motion. Defendant has met the requirements for relief from waiver of objections by serving responses that are in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230 and 2030.240, and by offering a declaration expressing mistake on the part of counsel.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for relief from waiver as to Form Interrogatories, Set Two, Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Request for Production of Documents is GRANTED. 

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

      Dated this 31st day of January 2023