Judge: Robert C. Longstreth, Case: 37-2022-00011400-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-02-16 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - February 01, 2024

02/02/2024  08:30:00 AM  C-65 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Robert Longstreth

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00011400-CU-BC-CTL HERNANDEZ VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 06/06/2023

Defendant's Amended Motion for Relief from Waiver of Written Discovery Objections (ROA 63) is GRANTED.

Defendant initially filed moving papers on June 6, 2023. Without explanation, Defendant then filed 'amended' papers on June 12, 2023. The court has only considered the 'amended' papers.

Although Defendant served timely responses to Plaintiff's first set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production, Defendant failed to serve timely responses to Plaintiff's first set of Requests for Admissions ('RFA'). When Defendant's counsel realized the error, responses were served on December 27, 2022, and verifications were served January 5, 2023.

Defendant seeks relief from the waiver of its objections pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280(a). To obtain such relief, Defendant must demonstrate (1) Defendant has 'subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230' and (2) Defendant's 'failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.' The court has reviewed the responses and has determined they are in substantial compliance with Code, that the objections are, at the least in large part, well-taken, and that Defendant has complied with the purpose of the RFA's by providing a good faith statement of its position as to what matters still require proof. In any event, even if 'some of the responses were less than clear or complete,' that 'does not detract from that conclusion.' (Tobin v. Oris (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 814, 827, disapproved on other grounds by Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 983.) The court reviews the responses 'in toto' when making its determination. (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 780, the Code 'does not permit the court to segregate each individual RFA response for the purpose of finding that portions of the document are code-compliant (and will therefore be accepted), while concluding that other portions are noncompliant (and will thus be rejected).') The court further concludes Defendant's failure to serve timely responses was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Pappas Decl. ¶¶ 3, 5-8.) Plaintiff did not dispute this in his opposition.

Defendant is relieved from the waiver of its objections to Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions, Set One.

Plaintiff's Motion for Order Establishing Admissions; and for Sanctions in the Amount of $6,500.00 (ROA Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3041090  3 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  HERNANDEZ VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED]  37-2022-00011400-CU-BC-CTL 29) is DENIED.

'[A] responding party's service of a tardy proposed RFA response that is substantially code-compliant will defeat a deemed admitted motion.' (St. Mary, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 778.) Here, Defendant served substantially compliant responses a few weeks late, as Plaintiff admits in its moving papers.

(Zhang Decl. at ¶ 12, Exh. 6.) Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion must be denied.

Plaintiff's request for monetary sanctions is also denied. Defendant served the late responses well before this motion was filed. (See Weil, et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2023) ¶8:1377.2, 'no sanctions of any kind can be imposed for mere delay in responding to RFAs if no motion has yet been filed' (emphasis in original); see also St. Mary at p. 784.) As stated above, the court finds that the responses are substantially code-compliant.

Once confirmed, this ruling shall be the final ruling of the court and no further written order is required.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3041090  3