Request For Admissions: Heavily Contested Case On Liability, Causation, And Damages Justified Denial Of Successful Plaintiff’s Cost Of Proof Sanctions Under CCP § 2033.420

4/1 DCA Actually Provided A Circumstance-Prone “Rule Of Thumb” To Use.

            In Markel Ins. Co. v. Controlled Environment HVAC, Inc., Case No. D073125 (4^th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 4, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiff brought a res ipsa loquitur negligence case, one which was heavily contested on liability, causation, and damages—especially given the defense took the position that someone might be liable, but not our defendants.  Plaintiff ultimately prevailed and sought costs of proof sanctions under the RFA denial statute, CCP § 2033.420, based on the defense denial of actually proof-ending RFAs.  The trial judge refused to award such costs (which include attorney’s fees), finding the defense had reasonable grounds to believe defendants would prevail at trial—an exception which will prevent the award of costs of proof sanctions.

            The 4/1 DCA affirmed, based on the deferential abuse of discretion standard showing that the defense presented much proof, which if believed, could have led to a different result.  However, Justice Dato on behalf of the appellate panel did provide us all with somewhat of a pragmatic “rule of thumb” to keep in mind in this area:  costs of proof sanctions are usually imposed where the losing party offers no evidence or insignificant evidence to buttress an earlier denial, which did not happen in this case.  Instead, the defense offered their own witness, three experts, and surveillance video to challenge core issues of liability, causation, and damages covered by the RFAs—hardly the circumstances which would nod in favor of section 2033.420 “sanctions” (which are not penalties and not awarded simply because one party prevailed in the wake of a sturdy defense from the adverse parties).