Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 21STCV35524, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV35524    Hearing Date: July 20, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On September 27, 2021, Plaintiff Brandy Lynn Sparks filed this action against Defendant General Motors, LLC

On April 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed (1) a motion to compel production of documents for Request for Production, Set One (CRS #: 038926198601); (2) a motion to compel written responses to Interrogatories (Special and Form), Set One (CRS #: 676766873693); and (3) a motion to deem Requests for Admission admitted (CRS #: 391812546379).

On June 13, 2023, Defendant filed a motion for relief from waiver of discovery objections (CRS #: 133011596976).

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM WAIVER

A party who fails to timely respond to discovery waives any objections, including those based on privilege.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.300, subd. (a) [RFPs], 2030.290 [interrogatories].)  The Court may grant relief from waiver if (1) the responding party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance; and (2) the failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.300, subd. (a) [RFPs], 2030.290 [interrogatories].) 

As set forth below, Defendant’s responses to the RFPs are not substantially compliant.  Defendant’s responses to the interrogatories are substantially compliant.  However, Defendant’s counsel has not provided sufficient evidence demonstrating mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

Defendant’s counsel declares only that “[t]he failure to serve timely responses was entirely due to an internal clerical error in calendaring.”  (Pappas Decl. ¶ 4.)  Counsel does not provide any further information explaining their failure to respond to discovery that was served on June 3, 2022—over a year before Defendant’s motion.  Counsel also does not explain how they failed to notice the outstanding discovery prior to Plaintiff’s April 27, 2023 motions, particularly when the parties were preparing for trial.  The parties’ August 30, 2022 Joint Mediation Status Report indicated that they were scheduling private mediation.  On April 10, 2023, Defendant filed motions in limine, and on April 21, 2023, Defendant filed oppositions to Plaintiff’s motions in limine.  In sum, Defendant’s counsel does not show that the failure to respond was excusable in light of all the circumstances.

Defendant also contends that “[h]ad counsel for Plaintiff notified Defendant of its error, perhaps the matter could have been amicably resolved thereby avoiding the need for court intervention.”  (Motion at p. 3.)  While that may be true, Plaintiff was not obligated to meet and confer before filing her motions to compel initial responses.  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)

Because Defendant has not made a sufficient showing of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, the motion for relief from waiver is DENIED.

PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY MOTIONS

When a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)   A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).)

When a party fails to timely respond to a request for admission, the propounding party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)  The party who failed to respond waives any objections to the demand, unless the court grants them relief from the waiver, upon a showing that the party (1) has subsequently served a substantially compliant response, and (2) that the party’s failure to respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subds. (a)(1)-(2).)  The court shall grant a motion to deem admitted requests for admissions, “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Plaintiff served discovery on Defendant on June 3, 2022.  Defendant did not timely serve responses to Plaintiff’s discovery.  Defense counsel explains that “due to an internal calendaring error, timely responses were not served” until after Plaintiff filed her discovery motions.  (Pappas Decl. ¶ 5.)  Defendant served responses on May 4, 2023, and served document production on June 1, 2023.  (Pappas Decl. ¶ 5.)  Plaintiff’s counsel argues that the late responses are deficient.

A.        Defendant Must Produce Supplemental Responses to Requests For Production, Set One.

Plaintiff contends that “Defendant fails to provide clear, straightforward and code-compliant responses.”  (Reply at p. 1.)  For example, for RFP No. 1, Defendant provided boilerplate objections before stating, “Subject to and without waiving any objections, GM will comply in part and produce the following documents in its possession, custody and control . . . .”  (Reply at pp. 1-2.)  For RFP Nos. 5, 9, 25, and others, Defendant again stated that it would “comply in part.”  (Pappas Decl., Ex. A.)  Defendant’s response to RFP Nos. 7-8, 12, 16, 53, and others set forth only boilerplate objections before stating, “No documents will be produced.”  (Reply at pp. 2-3; Pappas Decl., Ex. A.)  These are not substantially compliant responses.

The motion to compel is GRANTED.  Defendant must fully comply and produce supplemental responses, without objections, within 21 days.

B.        Defendant’s Responses to Interrogatories (Special and Form), Set One Are Sufficient.

In reply, Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s responses to Special Rog Nos. 2, 5, and 13 are not “clear, straightforward, and code-compliant responses.”  (Reply at pp. 1-3.)  These responses refer Plaintiff to specific documents produced with the RFPs, and they are compliant responses.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.)

Defendant’s objections are overruled.  The motion is otherwise DENIED.

C.        Defendant Served Compliant Responses to Requests for Admission.

In reply, Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s responses to RFA Nos. 6 and 7 are not “clear, straightforward and code-compliant responses,” and they are “vague and evasive.”  (Reply at pp. 1-2.)  Defendant admitted specific facts and then responded, “Otherwise, denied.”  These are clear admissions and denials to the RFAs.

Because Defendant provided responses in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220, the motion is DENIED.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 20th day of July 2023