In Elston v. City of Turlock (1985) 38 Cal.3d 227, 233, 211 Cal. Rptr. 416, 695 P.2d 713, the court addressed the issue of whether an attorney's failure to respond to the defendant's request for admissions was excusable neglect. The attorney's affidavit stated two attorneys had recently left the firm, he was involved in other business and litigation matters at the time, his office was understaffed at the time the request for admissions was received, and the request for admissions was misplaced. ( Id. at p. 234.) The court explained: "Where an attorney states that he was unaware of his duty to appear or answer because his employees misplaced papers . . . relief is routinely granted." (Ibid., italics added.) It concluded: "Although counsel's affidavit could have been more explicit, his 'failure to show an established office calendaring procedure was not a critical omission.'" (Ibid.) In Elston, the attorney stated he was not aware of the request for admissions because his office was shorthanded and it was misplaced. ( Elston v. City of Turlock, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 234.)