Aguilar v. Cottage Health

Case Number

25CV03803

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 01/07/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Waiver

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiff Carolina Aguilar: Ramin R. Younessi, Law Offices of Ramin R. Younessi, a Professional Law Corporation

 

For Defendant Cottage Health: Puneet K. Sandhu, Vicky H. Lin, Pazzani & Sandhu LLP

RULING

For all the reasons stated herein, the Court grants Carolina Aguilar’s motion for relief from the waiver of objections. To ensure substantial compliance, on or before January 22, 2026, Aguilar shall produce any responsive documents to the first set of requests for production not already produced along with a log identifying any responsive documents withheld based on objection. The log shall be sufficient for Cottage Health to ascertain the merits of the asserted objections.

Background

On June 20, 2025, Plaintiff Carolina Aguilar filed this action against Defendant Cottage Health alleging causes of action for (1) discrimination in violation of Government Code section 12940 et seq., (2) retaliation in violation of Government Code section 12940 et seq., (3) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of Government Code section 12940, subdivision (k), (4) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of Government Code section 12940 et seq., (5) failure to engage in a good faith interactive process in violation of Government Code section 12940 et seq., (6) declaratory judgment, (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (8) failure to pay wages, (9) failure to pay minimum wages, (10) failure to pay overtime, (11) failure to provide meal and rest periods, (12) failure to provide itemized wage and hour statements, (13) waiting time penalties, (14) failure to permit inspection of personnel and payroll records, and (15) unfair competition.

On July 16, 2025, Cottage Health served its first set of requests for production, first set of form interrogatories general, and first set of form interrogatories employment law (collectively the Subject Discovery). (Declaration of Benjamin Juhn [Juhn Decl.], Exs. 1-3.)

“On August 11, 2025, Plaintiff requested a three-week extension to serve her responses to the Subject Discovery. Defendant granted the extension from August 19, 2025, to September 9, 2025. Afterward, Plaintiff’s counsel transferred the case file from the previous handling attorney to a new handling attorney. As the result of an administrative error, the deadline to serve responses to the Subject Discovery was erroneously removed from the case calendar.” (Juhn Decl., ¶ 3.)

“On September 17, 2025, Defendant alerted Plaintiff to the missed deadline. Thereafter, Plaintiff promptly served her responses to the Subject Discovery on September 22, 20[25].” (Juhn Decl., ¶ 4.)

On October 3, 2025, “Defendant emailed Plaintiff … demanding that Plaintiff remove the objections asserted in her responses and to provide further responses.” (Juhn Decl., ¶ 5.)

On October 10, 2025, Aguilar filed this motion seeking relief from waiver of objections pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (a) and section 2030.290, subdivision (a). Cottage Health opposes the motion on the grounds that Aguilar did not establish substantial compliance with her obligations under Code of Civil procedure section 2031.240 or excusable neglect.

Analysis

“If a party … fails to serve a timely response … [t]he party … waives any objection … [but] [t]he Court … may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that … [¶] [t]he party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance … [and] [¶] [t]he party’s failure … was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a)(1) & (2).)

The Discovery Act does not provide a definition of “substantial compliance” in this context. (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 778-779 (St. Mary).) As a general matter, “[s]ubstantial compliance … means actual compliance in respect to the substance essential to every reasonable objective of the statute.” (Stasher v. Harger-Haldeman (1962) 58 Cal.2d 23, 29.). “Where there is compliance as to all matters of substance technical deviations are not to be given the stature of noncompliance. [Citation.] Substance prevails over form.” (St. Mary, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 779.) “This formulation is unobjectionable so long as it is understood to mean that each objective or purpose of a statute must be achieved in order to satisfy the substantial compliance standard, but this language cannot properly be understood to require ‘actual compliance’ with every specific statutory requirement.” (Costa v. Superior Court (2006) 37 Cal.4th 986, 1017, fn. 24.)

As to the document demands, Cottage Health argues that Aguilar did not substantially comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240, subdivision (b). “If the responding party objects to the demand … of an item or category of item, the response shall … [¶] [i]dentify with particularity any document … falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made [and] [¶] [s]et forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection….” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (b)(1) & (2).)

Many of Aguilar’s responses repeat the same statement of compliance after asserting various objections: “Respondent will comply with this request in part by producing all documents in this category that are in Respondent’s possession, custody or control and to which no objection is being made. Discovery is ongoing.” (Juhn Decl., Ex. 4.) Cottage Health, the propounding party, cannot discern what documents are being produced by Aguilar and what documents or categories are being withheld based on objections. On the other hand, production will resolve this omission if the production includes a log of any responsive documents withheld based on objection.

As to the two sets of form interrogatories (general and employment law), Aguilar’s belated responses appear to substantially comply with Aguilar’s discovery obligations. Cottage Health does not argue otherwise.

The parties disagree on whether the calendaring error constitutes excusable neglect. The parties cite cases where calendaring errors sometimes do, and sometimes do not, qualify as excusable neglect. (Compare Renteria v. Juvenile Justice, Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 903, 911 [“Together, these cases show that relief has been deemed proper when—as here—an attorney relies on a member of his or her staff to perform certain tasks, including calendaring deadlines, and the staff member errs.”] with Huh v. Wang (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1423 [“Conduct falling below the professional standard of care, such as failure to timely object or to properly advance an argument, is not therefore excusable.”].)

The circumstances in Comunidad en Accion v. Los Angeles City Council (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1134-1135 are analogous. There, “[t]he one-week delay … was an isolated mistake … the lead attorney made a single calendaring error, not a series of errors resulting from disorganization. This isolated mistake is indistinguishable from ones that Courts have regularly granted relief … [¶] Transporting a date from a timeline to a calendar is a clerical type mistake, not one involving professional skill. [Citation.] It is a mistake ‘anyone could have made.’ ” (Ibid.)

Here, there was an intra-office transfer of the matter from one attorney to another. The deadline to the Subject Discovery was inadvertently removed from the calendar during the transfer. The calendaring error was a one-time event and was noted to Cottage Health within ten days after the initial deadline. Thereafter, Aguilar served responses to the Subject Discovery within a reasonable time. There was no substantial prejudice to Cottage Health. Aguilar has demonstrated the calendaring error was excusable neglect.

For all these reasons, the Court will grant Aguilar’s motion for relief from the waiver of objections. The Court will also order that Aguilar produce all responsive documents not already produced along with a log of any responsive documents withheld based on objection.  This ruling does not address the merits of objections or the completeness of the document production.