Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV03415, Date: 2024-11-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV03415    Hearing Date: November 19, 2024    Dept: 29

Rodriguez v. Access Services
23STCV03415
Defendants’ Motion for Relief from Waiver of Objections

Tentative

The motion is denied.

Background

Two actions, now consolidated, were filed arising out of a vehicle accident on May 26, 2022.

In the first filed and lead action, on February 16, 2023, Juan Manuel Valles Rodriguez filed a complaint against Access Services (“Access”), California Transit Inc. (“Transit”), Doe Driver (Doe 1), and Does 2 through 100, asserting causes of faction for negligence, statutory liability, and respondeat superior.

On May 10, 2023, Access and Transit filed an answer and cross-complaint against Francisco Elizarraras Ortiz (“Ortiz”) and Roes 1 through 50.

In the second filed action (Case No. 23STCV06684), on March 24, 2023, (“Ortiz”) filed a complaint against Access, County of Los Angeles, Ivan Sherel Flores Soledad (“Soledad”), and Does 1 through 50, asserting causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.

On December 20, 2023, Access and Soledad filed an answer to Ortiz’s complaint.

The two cases were related on June 4, 2024, and consolidated on July 29, 2024.

As it relates to the matter set for hearing on November 19, Ortiz propounded discovery to Access and Soledad on December 7, 2023.  (Correia Decl., ¶ 3.)  The responses were due on January 10, 2024.  (Ibid.)

Access and Soledad requested extensions of time to respond, but the requests were after the response were due.  (Id., ¶ 4 & Exh. A.)  Ortiz agreed, but stated that all objections were waived.  (Id., ¶ 4.)

Access and Soledad served verified substantive responses, with objections, to the discovery on May 21 and 22, 2024.  (Id., ¶¶ 5-6 & Exhs. B-C.)  On June 5, 2024, the Court (Kim, J.) granted Ortiz’s motion to compel Access and Soledad to provide responses without objections.

On October 22, 2024, Access and Soledad (collectively “Defendants”) filed this motion for an order granting relief from waiver of objections in their responses to Ortiz’s form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission. 

Plaintiff filed an opposition on November 5.  Defendants filed a reply on November 12.

Legal Standard

A party to whom interrogatories are propounded waives the right to object to the requests if they fail to serve a timely response. However, a party may be relieved of that waiver if “(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 plaintiff’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., section 2030.290.)¿There are substantially similar sections pertaining to relief from waiver of objections for requests for admission and requests for production. (Code Civ. Proc., sections 2033.280, 2031.300.)¿¿

The statutory language “mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect” in the discovery statute should be interpreted using the same general principles developed in application of the identical language in section 473, subdivision (b). (Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 263, 275.) Although the party moving for relief under section 473 has the burden to show that the mistake, inadvertence, or neglect was excusable, any doubts as to that showing must be resolved in favor of the moving party. (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1420.)¿¿

The courts have ruled that substantial compliance is dependent on the meaning and purpose of the statute. (Freeman v. Vista de Santa Barbara Associates LP (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 791, 793.) For example, a proposed response to requests for admission are substantially compliant where the responses were verified, contained responses to a majority of responses, and were served before the hearing on a motion to compel. (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 782.) Such responses may not have complied with all statutory requirements, but constituted facially good-faith efforts to respond to the requests for admissions that were substantially code compliant. (Ibid.)

Discussion

Defendants seek an order granting relief from the waiver of objections in their responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission. Defendants argue the failure to serve timely responses was due to mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect. (Opening Mem., at p. 5.)

Defendants, as the moving parties, have the initial burden of producing evidence to support the requested relief.  In this context, that means that they have the burden of producing evidence to show that the failure to serve timely responses was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

Defendants have not done so.  Nothing in their moving papers addresses or explains why they missed the deadline to respond to Ortiz’s discovery.  This is required for Defendants to obtain the relief they request.

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is denied.

The request of Ortiz for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 is also denied.  Ortiz satisfies neither the procedural nor the substantive requirements for such sanctions.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion for waiver of objections.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.