Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 20STCV10542, Date: 2022-10-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV10542    Hearing Date: October 6, 2022    Dept: 29

Julia Roper, et al. v. Fernando Zepeda Garcia, et al.


Shape 

Motion for Relief from Waiver of Objections filed by Plaintiffs Julia Roper and Eduardo Martorell


TENTATIVE

 

The Motion for Relief from Waiver of Objections filed by Plaintiffs Julia Roper and Eduardo Martorell is GRANTED.

 

Legal Standard

 

C.C.P. §2030.290(a) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:  

 

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. 

 

C.C.P. §2031.300 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 

 

If 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. 

 

C.C.P. §2033.280 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:  

 

If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:  

 

(a)¿The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, 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 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230.  

 

(2)¿The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.  

 

The court, on motion, may relieve that party from its waiver on the court’s determination that: (1) the party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with the Discovery Act, and (2) the party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.¿¿(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a); 2031.300, subd. (a).)¿  

 

Discussion

 

Plaintiffs move for relief from waiver of objections, arguing they served substantially compliant responses and the failure to timely serve a response was a result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

They argue that in the midst of a firm transition involving firm staff and attorneys, beginning around March of 2022, Defendant propounded Special Interrogatories, Form Interrogatories, Request for Production/Inspection, and Requests for Admission, Set One on Plaintiffs. Due to the firm’s transition involving four employees of a six-employee law firm, counsel for Plaintiffs requested additional time to respond to the Discovery Requests. (Martorell Decl., ¶ 2.) Defendant granted Plaintiffs’ requests, ultimately rendering Plaintiffs’ discovery responses due on June 28, 2022. Struggling to find additional staff and attorneys to fill the gaps left by the former employees, counsel for Plaintiffs inadvertently failed to calendar Plaintiffs’ deadline to respond as there were no other staff members monitoring Plaintiffs’ counsel’s inbox to calendar deadlines. (Id., ¶ 5.) On Friday, July 8, 2022, after counsel for Defendant informed Plaintiffs that they did not receive discovery responses, counsel for Plaintiffs contacted Defendant’s counsel, attaching Plaintiffs’ unverified responses to the Discovery Requests, and promised to provide the complete and verified discovery responses not later than Monday, July 11, 2022. (Id. at ¶ 6, Exh. 10.) Counsel for Defendant responded to Plaintiffs’ counsel requesting the verified responses, without objections, not later than the July 11, 2022 Plaintiffs proposed. (Id.) Plaintiffs served Defendant their clear, forthcoming, substantially compliant, and verified responses to the Discovery Requests on July 11, 2022, but included objections to preserve Plaintiffs’ rights. (Id., ¶ 7; Exhs. 11-18.)

In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs have not served substantially complaint responses and the failure to respond was not due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

 

First, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have provided substantially compliant responses to Defendant’s discovery requests.  

 

“‘Substantial compliance, as the phrase is used in the decisions, means actual compliance in respect to the substance essential to every reasonable objective of the statute.’ (Stasher v. Harger–Haldeman (1962) 58 Cal.2d 23, 29.) Where there is compliance as to all matters of substance technical deviations are not to be given the stature of noncompliance. [Citation.] Substance prevails over form.” (Southern Pac. Transportation Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 438, 442; see also Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Board of Equalization (2013) 57 Cal.4th 401, 426.) Our high court has more recently explained with respect to the above-quoted passage from Stasher: “This formulation is unobjectionable so long as it is understood to mean that each objective or purpose of a statute must be achieved in order to satisfy the substantial compliance standard, but this language cannot properly be understood to require ‘actual compliance’ with every specific statutory requirement.” (Costa v. Superior Court (2006) 37 Cal.4th 986, 1017, fn. 24.) 

 

Here, Plaintiffs have provided responses and objections to Defendant’s discovery requests in the format statutorily required. (See Exhs. 11-18.) Plaintiffs, in total, provided responses that are sufficient under the Discovery Act; if Defendant seeks further responses, a motion to compel further is an appropriate motion to seek the remedy it suggests is appropriate here.  

 

Plaintiffs also show that failure to provide Defendant with timely responses was due to a mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.  

 

The same standard for relief from defaults used in C.C.P. §473 is used for failure to serve a timely response to a discovery demand. (City of Fresno v. Superior Court (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1459, 1467.)  

 

“Inadvertence is defined as lack of heedfulness or attentiveness, inattention, fault from negligence. [Citations] Inadvertence in the abstract is no plea on which to vacate a default. [Citation]” (Baratti v. Baratti (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 917, 921.)  “The ‘excusable neglect’ referred to in [C.C.P. §473(b)] is that neglect which might have been the act of a reasonably prudent person under the same circumstances. [Citation]” (Id.)  “A mistake of fact is when a person understands the facts to be other than they are; a mistake of law is when a person knows the facts as they really are but has a mistaken belief as to the legal consequences of those facts. [Citation]” (Id.) “[A] mistake of law may be excusable when made by a layman but not when made by an attorney.”  (Tammen v. County of San Diego (1967) 66 Cal.2d 468, 479.)   

 

Plaintiffs aver that due to the firm’s transition involving four employees, they requested additional time to respond to discovery. The new deadline was June 28, 2022. However, they inadvertently failed to calendar Plaintiffs’ deadline to respond as there were no other staff members monitoring Plaintiffs’ counsel’s inbox to calendar deadlines. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Then, on July 8, 2022, counsel for Defendant informed Plaintiffs that they did not receive discovery responses. (Id. at ¶ 6, Ex. 10.)

 

This is sufficient to establish Plaintiffs’ inadvertence. As such, the motion is granted.

 

Conclusion

 

Accordingly, the Motion for Relief from Waiver of Objections filed by Plaintiffs Julia Roper and Eduardo Martorell is GRANTED.

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.