Maria Daniel vs City of Santa Barbara et al

Case Number

20CV03516

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 08/16/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion: Relief from Waiver of Objections

Tentative Ruling

The motion is granted; plaintiff’s request for further sanctions is denied.

BACKGROUND: When defendants failed to timely respond to discovery propounded by plaintiff, plaintiff moved to compel responses, and for deemed admissions. Thereafter, defendants served unverified responses to the discovery, later followed by verifications to the responses which had been provided. The responses contained objections, although no motion for relief from the waiver of discovery objections had been filed.

At the hearing on the motions to compel and motions for deemed admissions, the Court found that in providing responses containing objections, without first having filed a motion for relief from the waiver of those objections, the responses served by defendants were not code-compliant. It ordered defendants to provide verified responses to all of the discovery, without objections, on or before May 24, 2024, but noted that such order would be held in abeyance pending resolution of a motion for relief from the waiver of objections, should that motion be filed prior to that date. The Court ordered defendants, their attorneys, or both, to pay sanctions totaling $5,000 to counsel for plaintiffs.

On May 23, 2024, within the time permitted by the Court, defendants filed the current motion for relief from the objections.

On June 28, 2024, new counsel substituted into the action on behalf of defendants City of Santa Barbara (City) and Granite Construction Co. (Granite)

At the August 9, 2024 Trial Confirmation Conference in this case, the case was set for a date- certain jury trial, commencing on April 7, 2025. 

Motion: In the motion for relief from jury waiver, now-former counsel for City and Granite explained that plaintiff propounded second sets of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for admissions, and requests for production of documents on each of the defendants on December 13, 2023, and on December 19, 2023, separately propounded supplemental requests for production and supplemental interrogatories on each defendant. She was initially confused about whether the December 13 discovery requests had been replaced by the December 19, discovery quests, and wrote to defense counsel regarding the apparent duplication. During this time, the parties were engaged in multiple depositions, were attempting to schedule a mediation, and had an agreement to place certain proceedings on hold. She understood that plaintiff had granted an extension of time through February 5 to respond. She wrote to plaintiff’s counsel on January 31, noting that she had received no response to her meet and confer correspondence from December, and noted further that defendants believed the only outstanding discovery was the responses to the supplemental discovery requests. It was only then that plaintiff’s counsel indicated that he expected responses to all discovery requests.

It was during this time period that then-defense counsel learned that a close family member was seriously ill, and in early February, 2024, learned that the family member had been diagnosed with terminal cancer. She did not communicate this to either opposing counsel or the court (in opposing the motions to compel). She was unaccustomed to dealing with that sort of situation, and believed she could continue to work as normal. However, in trying to handle a busy calendar and attempts to set mediation while dealing with her personal matters, she missed the deadline to respond to the discovery requests. On February 14, 2024, she traveled to the UK to spend time with her family; the 12 discovery motions were received the same day, having been served via email the night before.

Counsel represented that it was not her practice to miss deadlines, and the situation was unprecedented in her career. Immediately upon learning that she had missed the deadline for response, and that plaintiff expected responses to all 12 discovery requests, and not just the supplemental discovery, an associate completed preparation of the in-progress responses and served them. Since the case was essentially on hold at the time, and the discovery cut-off had passed, defendants believed plaintiff was not prejudiced by the delay. Responses were served on February 28, 2024, advising plaintiff that the verifications would follow, and the verifications were forwarded as soon as they were received.

At the hearing on the motions, the Court ruled that responses without objection were due no later than May 24, 2024, but that if a motion for relief from waiver of objections was filed by that time, the time for that response would be held in abeyance pending resolution of the motion. The motion was filed on May 23.

Based upon this information, City and Granite seek relief from their waiver of discovery objections, contending that the responses they served were in substantial compliance with relevant code sections, and their failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

Opposition Plaintiff has opposed the motion on various grounds, including extensive arguments that relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) is not available in discovery disputes. Plaintiff argues further that defendants have not carried their burden of establishing that the statutory condition for relief under the Discovery Act exists. She argues that defendants’ discovery responses are not in substantial compliance with the underlying discovery sections, making specific critiques of specific discovery responses in concluding that the responses were deficient and not code-compliant.

Plaintiff further contends that the court should deny relief because counsel’s neglect was not excusable under the facts present. She cites City of Fresno v. Superior Court (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1426 for the proposition that relief from waiver of objections should be denied when counsel’s mistake of law and claimed busy schedule resulted in missing the deadline for response. There was no clerical error, and defense counsel clearly stated that she missed the deadline, after properly calendaring the deadline for responses and requesting a continuance. Counsel does not explain why she failed to request another extension while dealing with her family situation, and plaintiff concludes that these circumstances therefore cannot be a proper ground for relief. Plaintiff also asserts that counsel’s declaration is vague as to the time when she learned about her relative’s sickness, and it appears she only learned after she failed to timely provide responses. She indicated she was incorrectly confused regarding plaintiff’s December 13, 2023, discovery, but a mistake of law is an insufficient basis for relief from waiver of objections.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions of $2,100.00, for the additional fees incurred in opposing what she characterizes as an “unwarranted motion for relief,” contending that defendants’ conduct represented an “egregious abuse of the discovery process,” and “a brazen attempt to impede Plaintiff from thoroughly investigating the case.”

Finally, plaintiff contends that the Discovery Act does not state that the lack of prejudice to the opposing party is a factor for the court to consider, and that she therefore has no burden of proving prejudice in defeating the motion. She contends that lengthy, unjustified delay is inherently prejudicial. She asserts that the motion is a part of a pattern of defendants’ ongoing abuses of the discovery process.

Reply [Note: The Court notes that the reply was filed by new counsel for defendants.] In their reply, defendants assert that they met their burden in establishing the propriety of the requested relief. First, their responses substantially complied with the relevant discovery statutes. Substantial compliance does not mean an absence of objections, and for a belated response to be in substantial compliance with the duty to respond, as contemplated by the codes, any response is permissible as long as there is a full and fair response to each discovery request so that all questions are answered other than those to which the belated objections relate. Defendants provided full and fair responses, even when asserting objections. As pointed out by plaintiff, defendants did object that the definition of “incident” was vague and ambiguous, but still provided full and substantive answers to those interrogatories. Plaintiff’s statement that defendants’ responses consist mostly of “straight up objections without any response” is not accurate; when they objected to a request without providing a response, it was because the plaintiff had already propounded the same request, making it duplicative, which is a legitimate objection. A review of the discovery responses quickly dispatches the argument that the responses were not in substantial compliance.

Second, prior counsel has shown that her failures resulted form mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. The court has broad discretion in area, and the same standard is applied that is applied under Section 473. “Inadvertence” is defined as a “lack of heedfulness or attentiveness, inattention, fault from negligence.” (Baratti v. Baratti (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 917, 921.) Former counsel demonstrated that the discovery was inadvertently overlooked in the avalanche of email correspondence between the parties, as well as her family emergency. She initially attempted to meet and confer regarding the second set of discovery that mirrored and duplicated a first set, which had been timely responded to by defendants. She was under the impression that the subsequently sent supplemental discovery was to replace the duplicative second set of discovery—this was a mistake of fact, not a mistake of law, as argued by plaintiff. She asked plaintiff if her understanding was correct, and received no response from plaintiff’s counsel. She later asked for discovery continuances while the parties continued to meet and confer, while she waited for clarification regarding the obligation to respond to the second set, and while in the midst of multiple depositions, attempting to schedule a mediation, and with an agreement to place certain proceedings in the case on hold. She never contended that she was “too busy” to provide responses, as plaintiff argues. Rather, former counsel explained that due to the ongoing meet and confer efforts and ongoing holds in the case, she inadvertently and mistakenly failed to timely respond to the discovery.

It was during this time period that she learned that a family member was ill, and later toward the beginning of February, learned the family member had been diagnosed with terminal cancer. A combination of those factors caused her to lose track of the due dates and agreements, and to inadvertently miss the deadlines for response. Plaintiff’s counsel’s implication that Ms. Dewey concocted the timeline of her family emergency for her own benefit is not only unsupported by any evidence, but is improperly accusatory in the context of the standards of civility and professionalism to which officers of the court are held.

Finally, defendants contend that plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are impermissible under the statutes she cites, and any award of sanctions would be improper. The statutes to which she refers permit the imposition of sanctions against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses to discovery, which is not what has occurred. Only a motion to compel responses was previously filed, and defendants were already sanctioned with respect to that motion. The court ordered defendants to provide responses without objections unless they filed a motion for relief from the waiver by May 24, which they did, and obtained the first available hearing date for the motion. There is no legal or factual basis for imposition of sanctions, and the request should be denied.

ANALYSIS: The Court will grant the motion, and will deny plaintiff’s request for further sanctions. Defendants need provide no further response to the discovery.

1.         Standards for relief from waiver of discovery objections.

The failure to provide discovery responses within the statutory time limit waives most objections, including claims of privilege and “work product” protection. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a); 2031.300, subd. (a); 2033.280, subd. (a).) Each such waiver provision provides that the court, on motion, may relieve the party from such waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: (a) the party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with statutory requirements, and (b) the party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subds. (a)(1) and (2); 2031.300, subds. (a)(1) and (2); 2033.280, subds. (a)(1) and (2).)

The trial judge has broad discretion in determining whether the party’s failure to serve timely responses resulted from mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, although not every excuse is excusable. (See Mannino v. Superior Court (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 776, 778-779.) Because the Discovery Act contains specific provisions for relief for delayed responses, relief cannot be obtained pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b). (See Zellerino v. Brown (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1097, 1107.) Even so, the standards for determining whether relief should be granted is largely the same as for determining entitlement to discretionary relief from default under Section 473(b). (City of Fresno v. Superior Court (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1459, 1467.)

In determining whether responses are in substantial compliance with the statutory requirements, the court evaluates the responses “in toto,” rather than based on responses to individual requests. (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 779-780.)

2.         Application.

The motion for relief from waiver of objections was timely filed, under the terms provided by the Court in ruling on the previous motions to compel responses without objection. Further, this Court is well aware of the difficulties in obtaining hearing dates for law and motion matters in this department, and has little doubt that former counsel for defendants set the hearing on the first available hearing date. The timing of the filing of the motion, and the scheduling of the hearing date, are therefore not a factor in this Court’s evaluation of the merits of the motion, plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Court has briefly reviewed the responses which defendants provided to the discovery, evaluating them “in toto,” as required by law, rather than based upon responses to individual requests. Having done so, the Court finds that they substantially comply with the statutory requirements for responses to discovery, and therefore meet the first requirement for relief from the waiver of objections.

The Court has further evaluated the explanation provided by former counsel for defendants, and finds that it meets the legal standards of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, within the meaning of the Discovery Act. Contrary to plaintiff’s contentions, there were no inexcusable mistakes of law involved. There may have been mistakes of fact involved, but it also appears that counsel attempted to clarify issues regarding her mistakes of fact. The Court finds that counsel’s explanation of the events which led to her failing to timely respond to the discovery constitutes inadvertence and excusable neglect, sufficient to warrant the grant of relief to her clients from the waiver of objections which resulted from her conduct. This is particularly true given that, during critical portions of the relevant period, counsel was attempting to conduct her law practice while she was impacted by the diagnosis of a close family member with a terminal illness—something that would inevitably impact the actions and judgment of any feeling human being.

For these reasons, the Court will grant the motion, and will relieve defendants City and Granite from the waiver of discovery objections in the subject discovery responses.

The Court will also deny plaintiff’s request for sanctions. The Court notes that defendants have asserted that sanctions are unavailable because there is no statutory authorization for sanctions under the circumstances presented, and that in any event their conduct did not warrant imposition of sanctions. The Court did not reach the issue of whether there is or is not any statutory basis for imposition of sanctions for a motion such as this one, given that it cannot find that defendants’ behavior in bringing this motion in any way even approaches a standard of lacking any “substantial justification” so as to warrant even the consideration of a sanction award.

The trial date has been continued to commence on the date certain of April 7, 2025. The Court has not reopened discovery. However, given the uncertainty which has surrounded the status of defendants’ responses to the discovery which was at issue in this motion, the Court will give plaintiff a limited opportunity to file motions to compel further responses to the discovery, if in fact she truly believes that the discovery responses are insufficient on a request-by-request basis. Any such motion must be on filed no later than August 30, 2024, and set for hearing on the first available hearing date in this department which complies with the statutory notice provisions for law and motion hearings. The ordinary standards will apply with respect to the burdens which must be met, both substantively and for the imposition of sanctions, if any are sought in either the moving or opposing papers.