Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV44905, Date: 2022-09-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44905    Hearing Date: September 19, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On December 9, 2021, plaintiff Lovjeet Singh (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Avis Budget Group, Inc. (“Defendant”) (erroneously sued as “Budget Rent A Car System, Inc.”) and Kimberly Boutte arising from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on December 17, 2019. 

On August 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed this motion for relief from his waiver of objections to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Admissions (Set One).  Defendant filed an opposition brief on September 6, 2022.  No reply brief is on file. 

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

The failure to timely respond to interrogatories waives all objections to the interrogatories.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).)  The Court may, on motion, relieve the responding party from the waiver where it determines both that “[t]he party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240” and “[t]he party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.”  (Ibid.)  The failure to timely respond to requests for production and requests for admission likewise results in a waiver, and the Court may relieve a party from the waiver upon the same determination.  (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.300(a); 2033.280(a).)

“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.”  Where there is compliance as to all matters of substance technical deviations are not to be given the stature of noncompliance.  Substance prevails over form.”  (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 779.  Responses are viewed as a whole, the Court does not apply a piecemeal approach.  (Id.)

The statutory language “mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect” 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.) 

III.        DISCUSSION

Steven Daneshgar, counsel for Plaintiff, declares that his office failed to calendar the date Plaintiff’s discovery responses were due.  (Motion, Daneshgar Decl., ¶ 3.)  The Court finds this is sufficient to show that the failure to serve responses was an inadvertent and excusable mistake. 

As for whether the responses are substantially compliant, Mr. Daneshgar declares that Plaintiff served responses to Defendant’s discovery requests on August 17, 2022.  But the responses are not attached to Plaintiff’s motion.  The Court notes that Defendant attaches Plaintiff’s responses to its special interrogatories, form interrogatories, and requests for production of documents, but Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s requests for admission are not included.  Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for relief is DENIED without prejudice with respect to the Requests for Admission (Set One). 

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s other discovery requests and finds that Plaintiff’s responses demonstrate “substantial compliance” in that all responses are complete.  (See Robertson v. Health Net of California, Inc.¿(2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1419, 1430.)  The suitability of the responses and the merits of Plaintiff’s objections are not the subject matter of the instant motion.  The Court encourages the parties to meet and confer, and possibly serve supplemental responses prior to resorting to motion practice.  The Court further reminds the parties that any motion to compel further must be preceded by an informal discovery conference.

IV.         CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED with respect to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One), Request for Production (Set One), and Special Interrogatories (Set One) and DENIED with respect to Defendant’s Request for Admission (Set One)

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.