Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV26752, Date: 2022-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV26752    Hearing Date: December 8, 2022    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Motion for Relief from Waiver of Objections to Form Interrogatories 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. 

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

Defendant moves for relief from waiver of objections to form interrogatories, arguing it served substantially compliant responses and the failure to timely serve a response was a result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

The original attorney assigned to the matter, Van Meter, inadvertently failed to respond to written discovery and then, subsequently left the firm that represents Defendant LACMTA. (Preciado Decl., ¶ 4.) Prior to departing, he was asked to submit a closing memorandum that included all outstanding matters. (Id.) He did so, but mistakenly failed to mention the outstanding discovery responses due to Plaintiff and, inadvertently, the failure to provide responses was not discovered until recently. (Id.) When Plaintiff filed these motions to compel, the mistake was discovered, and counsel for LACTMA then provided responses to the discovery requests on October 25, 2022. (Id., ¶ 6; Exh. A.) 

First, the Court finds that Defendant has 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.) 

Defendant has also shown that failure to provide Plaintiff 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.)   

Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Relief from Waiver of Objections to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.