Tom Sandoval Begs Judge to Forgive Mistake He Made While Repping Himself in Raquel Leviss Battle

Tom Sandoval begged a judge to allow him to avoid consequences for missing an important deadline in his battle with Rachel Leviss (formerly known as Raquel Leviss), claiming he was busy with the holidays and looking for a new lawyer after parting ways with his old team, In Touch can exclusively report.

Tom, 42, filed a declaration explaining the situation to the Los Angeles Superior Court judge presiding over Raquel’s invasion of privacy lawsuit against Tom and his ex-girlfriend, Ariana Madix.

The former Vanderpump Rules star explained he had been represented by lawyers Tara Karamians and Varand Gourjian.

“The Gourjian Law Group and I parted way, leaving me to represent myself until I could find another attorney,” Tom wrote.

As In Touch first reported, Tom and his lawyers ended their relationship in late 2024, which left Tom without a lawyer for 32 days.

Around the same time, Rachel, 30, and her legal team fired off a list of questions they demanded Tom answer as part of the case.

Tom said, “While I was aware that there was a 30-day deadline to respond to the discovery, I was not aware of the potential objections, or that missing the deadline to respond would result in a waiver of those obligations, as I am not an attorney and have no legal training.”

“On December 13, 2024, I was newly representing myself, actively searching for another attorney and mistakenly believed that I had missed the deadline to respond. I was concerned that this would make it appear as though I was trying to delay things,” Tom said.

“Therefore, I reached out to [Rachel’s] counsel, Mark Geragos, and asked for 30 more days to put together responses. Mr. Geragos did not respond to my email.”

As In Touch first reported, last month, Tom hired a new attorney Colin Hardacre to represent him.

In her lawsuit, Rachel claimed Tom secretly recorded explicit FaceTime chats they had during their affair and while he was in a relationship with Ariana, 39.

Rachel claimed Ariana found the videos on Tom’s phone and shared them with others. Ariana and Tom have denied all allegations of wrongdoing.

In addition, Ariana denied she shared the videos with anyone and said she watched them in a private room.

In November 2024, Tom publicly claimed Rachel’s lawyers offered to drop the lawsuit against him if Tom would “point the finger at NBC” in a potential case Raquel might bring against the network over her time on Vanderpump Rules.

“My lawyer said to me, ‘They gave you an offer — I know you’re not going to take it — but I have to bring it to you: If you point the finger at NBCUniversal, they’ll drop the case against you,’”

Tom told Page Six. Tom claimed Rachel’s lawyers wanted to know if he would say the network had “put him up to” revealing his relationship with Rachel to Ariana.

Rachel’s  lawyers, Mark Geragos and Bryan Freedman, denied the claims at the time. They told Page Six, “Tom claims he lost his phone. Tom claimed he lost his lawyer. Tom did in fact lose his motion to dismiss. It now appears he’s lost his mind.”

In his new motion, Tom’s new lawyer asked the court to not punish Tom for missing any deadlines while representing himself.

His lawyer noted, “At the time responses were due, Sandoval, a lay person, was unfamiliar with discovery procedures. He did not understand what objections could be made, let alone that those objections would be waived by failing to serve timely responses.”

In addition, “Sandoval represented himself in this case for 32 days, a short stretch during which he was dealing with the transition from his former attorneys, actively searching for a new attorney, and preparing for the holiday season. This chaotic stretch also happened to coincide with the date his responses to the first and only discovery served in this action were due.”

A judge has yet to rule.

In the motion, Tom included the list of questions Rachel wanted him to answer. The majority related to his public claims about her lawyers wanting his help on a lawsuit against NBC.

Rachel asked Tom, “If YOU contend that YOU were asked to misrepresent NBCUniversal’s involvement in the disclosure of YOUR relationship with LEVISS as a condition of settlement of the ACTION, identify who asked YOU to misrepresent NBCUniversal’s involvement.” In addition, they said, “Identify in detail all COMMUNICATIONS YOU have had with any PERSON RELATING TO YOUR settlement discussions with LEVISS RELATING TO the ACTION.”

In a request for admissions, Rachel’s lawyers said, “Admit YOU were never told that LEVISS would dismiss the ACTION against YOU if YOU agreed to misrepresent NBCUniversal’s involvement in the disclosure of YOUR relationship with LEVISS.” They also asked him to identity all personas involved in the alleged settlement discussions he claims took place.

The case is ongoing.