Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV30538, Date: 2025-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV30538    Hearing Date: January 3, 2025    Dept: 29

Rivera v. Parra-Prado
23STCV30538
Defendant’s Motion for Relief from Waiver of Objections to Written Discovery

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On December 14, 2023, Ricardo Rivera and Curt Weber filed a complaint against Julio Cesar Parra-Prado (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 10, asserting two cause of action for negligence (one on behalf of each plaintiff) arising out of an automobile accident occurring on November 23, 2023.

On March 4, 2024, Plaintiff Ricardo Rivera filed a request for dismissal of the cause of action on his behalf in the complaint.

On April 3, 2024, Defendant filed an answer.

On November 6, 2024, Defendant filed this motion for relief from waiver of objections to written discovery.

No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

A party to whom interrogatories are propounded waives his right to object to the requests if he failed 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 Court of Appeal has directed that 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 is substantially code compliant. (Ibid.)

Discussion

Defendant seeks an order granting relief from the waiver of objections to interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission. Defendant contends the failure to serve timely responses was due to mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect.

The failure to respond to discovery requests in a timely manner generally results in the waiver of all objections.  A party may bring a motion for relief from that waiver as to interrogatories 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.) Similar provisions in the Civil Discovery Act apply to requests for admission and requests for production. (Code Civ. Proc., sections 2033.280, 2031.300.)¿¿

Defendant was served with discovery on September 17, 2024, but due to attorney mistake, the response deadline was not calendared. (Boyd Decl., ¶¶ 3, 4.) Defendant served code-compliant responses on November 6, 2024. (Id., ¶ 6.)

The Court has reviewed Defendant’s untimely responses and finds them to be substantially code-complaint. (See Exh. C.)

Defendant has served substantially compliant discovery responses and has shown that the failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake.  The Court finds the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290, 2033.280, and 2031.300 are met.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for waiver of objections.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for relief from waiver of objections to written discovery.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.