SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background 

Plaintiff, Tracy Lynn Kamar (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants, Parking Concepts, Inc. for damages arising from a trip and fall on a concrete parking block. Plaintiff filed an amendment to complaint naming CA-Lats South, LLC (“CA-Lats”) as Doe 1.  

Plaintiff now moves for relief from the waiver of its objections to discovery propounded by CA-Lats. Plaintiff avers that her untimely responses to CA-Lats’ set one of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, request for admissions (“RFAs”), and request for production of documents (“RPDs”) were in substantial compliance with the Discovery Act, and that Plaintiff’s failure to timely serve was a result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.  

 CA-Lats opposes the motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply.  

 

II. Motion for Relief from Waiver of Objections  

The motion is governed by CCP §§ 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a), and 2033.280(a), all of which provide that a party who fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests waives any objections, but the court may relieve the party from the waiver if its determined both that (1) the party has subsequently serve responses that are in substantial compliance, and (2) the party's failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. 

Courts, on motion, may relieve parties from waivers of discovery objections caused by late responses, if parties subsequently have served responses in substantial compliance with applicable statutory provisions, and their failures resulted from mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Pelton v. Delta Packaging Prods. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1577 n.13 (citing CCP §2031.300); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 390, 407.) 

The words “mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect” have the same meaning in the discovery statutes as those terms have in CCP § 473(b).  (New Albertsons v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1418-19; see also Carli v. Superior Court (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 1095, 1099 [in the context of deemed admissions § 473 should be applied liberally “so cases can be tried on the merits”].)  

CA-Lats granted Plaintiff two extensions to provide responses, with responses ultimately due by September 27, 2023. On September 27, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel requested a third extension up to October 4, 2023. However, defense counsel did not respond to the request, and thus Plaintiff’s counsel avers he finalized the responses on September 27, 2023. However, due to Plaintiff’s counsel failure to communicate and coordinate with his paralegal to serve the responses by the end of the, the responses were not served on September 27, 2023. Instead, the responses were served the day after, on September 28, 2023.  

In opposition, CA-Lats argues the responses were not in substantial compliance with the relevant code provisions, because Plaintiff responded to the RFAs that she was unable to admit or deny to the requests. CA-Lats also argues that Plaintiff’s counsel’s reason for untimely service does not constitute mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.   

Here, Plaintiff provides copies of the discovery responses served on CA-Lats.  (Mot. Exhs. 3-7.)  The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s responses and finds, for the purposes of this motion for relief, that they are in substantial compliance with the Code.  Any contentions CA-Lats has about the evasiveness of Plaintiff’s responses to the RFAs may be addressed on a motion to compel further. Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration regarding the one-day late service is sufficient to show the failure to serve timely responses was the result of Plaintiff’s counsel’s mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect.  (Renteria v. Juvenile Justice, Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 903, 911-12 [“Excusable neglect, including for purposes of Code of Civil Procedure Section 473, includes the circumstances where an attorney relies upon employees who err in performing tasks.”].)  Furthermore, CA-Lats does not identify any prejudice if responses are permitted with objections. 

 

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