Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV11948, Date: 2022-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV11948    Hearing Date: September 20, 2022    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTIONS

Defendant Irma Sierra moves for relief from her waiver of objections to Request for Production of Documents, set one (“RPD”), Form Interrogatories, set one (“FROG”), Special Interrogatories, set one (“SROG”), and Requests for Admissions, set one (“RFA”) which plaintiff Gerardo Rodrigues propounded on Defendant.  Plaintiff opposes the motion.   

ANALYSIS

            A party who waives objections to discovery requests by failing to timely respond may seek relief from waiver on a noticed motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a), 2033.280, subd. (a).)  The party must serve responses “in substantial compliance” with that party's duty to respond before filing the motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a)(1), 2031.300, subd. (a)(1), 2033.280, subd. (a)(1).)  The moving party must also establish that the party's failure to serve a timely response resulted from “mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect.”  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a)(2), 2031.300, subd. (a)(2), 2033.280, subd. (a)(2).) 

Defendant advances the declaration counsel for Defendant, Alan P. Trafton (“Trafton”).  Trafton states Plaintiff served the subject discovery requests prior to his office being retained by Defendant.  (Declaration of Alan P. Trafton, ¶¶ 3-4.)  Trafton avers the parties agreed to two extensions of the deadline for Defendant’s discovery responses, until the final due date of July 15, 2022.  (Declaration of Alan P. Trafton, ¶¶ 5-6.)  Trafton states Defendant’s discovery responses were prepared and awaiting verification as of July 15, 2022, but that he neglected to serve the responses on that date.  (Declaration of Alan P. Trafton, ¶ 7)  Trafton states he then requested an additional, one-day extension on July 17, 2022, after he discovered Defendant’s discovery responses had not yet been served.  (Declaration of Alan P. Trafton, ¶ 8.)  According to Trafton, Plaintiff granted the extension provided Defendant provided responses without objections.  (Declaration of Alan P. Trafton, ¶¶ 8, 10.) 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues Defendant’s responses served on July 18, 2022, are not “in substantial compliance” and that Defendant fails to show her failure to serve a timely response was due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.  On both points, the Court disagrees.

The Court does not find the responses to be so deficient that they are not substantially compliant.

Ultimately, the Court finds Defendant demonstrates her failure to serve timely responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests was due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.  Defendant also demonstrates she served responses “in substantial compliance” with her duty to respond before filing the motion.  Accordingly, the Court grants the motion. 

CONCLUSION

            Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motion for relief from her waiver of objections to the RPD, FROG, SROG, and RFA per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290, 2031.300, and 2033.280.

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file proof of service of such.