Requests For Admission: RFA Cost-Of-Proof Awards Are More Often Denied Than Affirmed On Appeal

Check Out Our Sidebar Category “Requests For Admission.”

     Under our sidebar category “Requests for Admission” we have posted some five dozen times about published, as well as unpublished, appellate decisions affirming or denying a trial court’s grant or denial of cost-of-proof sanctions for failure to admit requests for admission.  After doing this for eight years, we can now make a general observation:  appellate courts more often affirm denials and reverse grants than they affirm grants and reverse denials of cost-of-proof sanctions.  True, parties denying RFAs do sometimes get hit with costs-of-proof, and the award can be significant indeed.  However, in our posts, nearly twice as many appellate cases affirm denials or reverse grants as compared to cases that affirm grants or reverse denials of cost-of-proof sanctions.

     There are plenty of reasons for denying costs-of-proof, and several are baked right into the statute:

      “(1) An objection to the request was sustained or a response to it was waived under Section 2033.290.  [Motion for compelling further responses].

        (2)  The admission was of no substantial importance.

       (3)  The party failing to make the admission had reasonable ground to believe that that party would prevail on the matter.

       (4)  There was other good reason for the failure to admit.”  Cal. Code of Civ. Proc., section 2033.420(b).

     Based on a review of our posts on the subject, we can also include some specific reasons that (largely) build on the statutory exemptions:

• A demurrer was granted so no costs-of-proof were involved.
• A matter was stipulated to so no costs-of-proof were involved.
• A matter was denied, but later admitted – for example in a deposition – so no costs-of-proof were involved.
• The request for admission was propounded before there was a reasonable opportunity to do discovery, so that there was a reasonable basis for denying the request.
• The denials were not unequivocal, and the propounding party failed to follow up with a motion.
• The request for fees targeted an attorney, but only a party is liable for costs-of-proof.
• Form interrogatory responses [17.1] did a reasonably good job of explaining the basis for a denial.
• The party failed to establish true costs-of-proof by failing to allocate attorney time to the actual matter that was proved at trial.
• Costs-of-proof were denied by the trial court, and the record on appeal was too deficient to mount a challenge to the denial.
• A preemptive federal statute limited remedies that a party could recover.