Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV36930, Date: 2022-10-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV36930 Hearing Date: October 21, 2022 Dept: 29
Dariole Gordy v. Renaissance Hotel Holdings, Inc., et al.
Motion for Relief from Waiver of Objections filed by Defendant
Sunstone LA Airport Lessee
TENTATIVE
Defendant Sunstone LA Airport Lessee, Inc.’s Motion for Relief from
Waiver of Objections 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
Defendant moves for relief from waiver of
objections, arguing it served substantially compliant responses and the failure
to timely serve a response was a result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable
neglect.
On or about June 21, 2022, Plaintiff
served on Sunstone Judicial Council Form Interrogatories, Special
Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and Request for
Admissions, with responses due on July 25, 2022. (Huezo Decl., ¶ 5.) Defendant
argues that the due dates were incorrectly calendared and defense counsel did
not receive a calendar reminder until after the responses were passed due. As
such, the due date did not make it on to defense counsel's personal calendar.
(Id., ¶¶ 10, 12.) However, as soon as defense counsel discovered the error,
defense counsel worked with Sunstone to provide substantive verified responses
as quickly as possible and served said verified responses on Plaintiff on
September 2, 2022. (Id., ¶ 17.)
In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant has not
served substantially complaint responses and the failure to respond was not due
to excusable mistake.
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.)
Here, Defendant has provided responses and objections to
Plaintiff’s discovery requests in the format statutorily required. (Huezo
Decl., Exh. B.) Defendant, in total, provided responses that are sufficient
under the Discovery Act; if Plaintiff seeks further responses, a motion to
compel further is an appropriate motion to seek the remedy it suggests is
appropriate here.
Defendant has also shown that failure to provide Plaintiff
with timely responses was due to a mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
The Court notes the standard is not excusable mistake, but simply a mistake or
inadvertence. 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.)
Defendant provides that it failed to
calendar the correct deadline to respond. (Huezo Decl., ¶ ¶ 10, 12.) An error
was made at the time of calendaring that resulted in the due date not being
entered in the E-Dockets system and the two-week reminder being calendared on
August 18, 2022, which should have in fact been calendared for July 18, 2022.
(Lee Dec. ¶ 9.) On August 30, 2022, Plaintiff met and conferred, for the first
time, regarding Sunstone's late responses and requested that Sunstone provide
substantive verified responses, without objections, by the end of business on
September 7, 2022. (Huezo Dec. ¶15) On August 31, 2022, defense counsel called Plaintiff's
counsel and advised that a calendaring error had resulted in Sunstone's failure
to provide timely responses but that Sunstone was working on providing
substantive verified responses as quickly as possible.
This is sufficient
to establish Defendant’s inadvertence. As such, the motion is granted.
Moreover,
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is unwarranted as there has been no misuse of
discovery here. The request is denied.
Conclusion
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Relief from Waiver of Objections
is GRANTED.
Moving party is
ordered to give notice.