Judge Sarah J. Heidel, Case Number: 22GDCV01034, Date: 2024-12-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Sarah J. Heidel, Case: 22GDCV01034, Date: 2024-12-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22GDCV01034 Hearing Date: December 18, 2024 Dept: V

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT V

GUADALUPE ZARATE, an individual,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 22GDCV01034
Hearing Date: December 18, 2024
Time: 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

1) MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET TWO)

2) MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM WAIVER OF DISCOVERY RESPONSE OBJECTIONS

MOVING PARTY ON THE MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES: Plaintiff, Guadalupe Zarate

RESPONDING PARTY ON MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES: Defendant, Ford Motor Company

MOVING PARTY ON THE MOTION FOR RELIEF: Defendant, Ford Motor Company

RESPONDING PARTY ON THE MOTION FOR RELIEF: Unopposed

The court considered the moving papers, Opposition, and Reply.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Guadalupe Zarate filed the complaint against defendant Ford Motor Company on December 15, 2022. Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: (1) violation of Song-Beverly Act – breach of express warranty; (2) violation of Song-Beverly Act – breach of implied warranty; and (3) violation of the Song-Beverly Act section 1793.2. Plaintiff alleges that on November 25, 2019, she purchased a 2020 Ford Explorer (subject vehicle). Plaintiff alleges the subject vehicle was delivered to plaintiff with serious defects and nonconformities to warranty and developed such to the electrical, structural, suspension, and transmission system.

Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel on October 22, 2024. Defendant filed the opposition on December 5, 2024. Plaintiff filed her reply on December 11, 2024.

Defendant filed the instant motion for relief on December 3, 2024.

LEGAL STANDARD

A plaintiff may serve a request for production of documents without leave of court at any time 10 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, the party to whom the demand is directed, whichever occurs first. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.020(b).)

The party whom the request is propounded upon is required to respond within 30 days after service, but the parties are allowed to informally agree to an extension and confirm any such agreement in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.260(a), 2031.270(a) - (b).)

Where there has been no timely response to a request for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(b).) If a party fails to timely respond to a request for production of documents, the party to whom the request is directed waives any objection, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(a).)

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300(a), “[t]he 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 [and] (2) The party's failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(a).)

DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Compel Responses

Plaintiff served Requests for Production (Set Two) on August 12, 2024. (Sogoyan Decl., ¶ 8.) Responses were due by September 13, 2024. (Sogoyan Decl., ¶ 9.) On October 9, 2024, plaintiff’s counsel attempted to meet and confer on October 9, 2024, by emailing defense counsel indicating its responses were overdue. (Sogoyan Decl., ¶ 12; Exh. 2.) On October 14, 2024, defense counsel requested a 30-day extension which plaintiff’s counsel denied explaining he had already given defendant a 30-day extension by waiting to meet and confer, thus defendant’s deadline to respond was October 18, 2024. (Sogoyan Decl., ¶ 13; Exh. 3.)

Defendant’s counsel contends that it was first made aware of Request for Production (Set Two) when plaintiff sent the October 9, 2024 letter regarding the outstanding discovery responses because the discovery was not served to the lead associate, Jeck Dizon’s email and at that point defendant’s counsel requested the 30 day extension which plaintiff denied. (Dizon Decl., ¶¶ 3, 10; Exh. A, B.) Defendant’s counsel states that written responses and document production were served October 28, 2024, as well as document production according to the Case Management Order Addendum in place when the case was assigned to Judge Ralph Hofer. (Dizon Decl., ¶¶ 15, 16; Exhs. C-E.) On October 29, 2024, defendant’s counsel asked plaintiff’s counsel to withdraw the motion to compel, but plaintiff did not respond. (Dizon Decl., ¶¶ 17, 18.) The court finds that as defendant’s counsel has served responses, the motion is moot.

B. Motion for Relief from Waiver of Discovery Response Objections

Defendant moves for an order relieving it from a waiver of the right to assert objections to the second set of Request for Production of Documents propounded by plaintiff pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300.

Defendant has shown it served responses in substantial compliance on October 28, 2024. (Dizon Decl., ¶ 15; Exh. E.) Though defendant’s response includes objections, a response may include an objection under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210 subdivision (a).

Defendant has also shown that its failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. The handling attorney Joanna Calderon (Ms. Calderon) believed there were no additional requests for production because plaintiff’s counsel did not electronically serve the discovery to the lead associate Jeck Dizon (Mr. Dizon). (Dizon Decl., ¶ 3; Exh. A.) When Ms. Calderon took over the case while Mr. Dizon was on paternity leave, she did not know defendant’s responses were overdue until plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter on October 9, 2024. (Dizon Decl., ¶ 12; Exh. B ¶¶ 3-6.) Once Ms. Calderon learned of counsel’s mistake, she requested a 30-day extension and when that was denied, defendant served responses as soon as practicable. (Dizon Decl., Exh. B ¶¶7, 8, 13.) The court finds that defendant met the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 subdivision (a), thus defendant is relieved from the waiver of objections.

Based on the foregoing, the court DENIES, as moot, plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two and GRANTS defendant’s motion for relief from waiver of objections to plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set Two.