Requests For Admissions: Defendant Properly Not Penalized With Costs-Of-Proof Sanctions Where It Had Reasonable, Good Faith Basis To Deny RFAs In Very Factually-Oriented Negligence Case

Defense Had Lay And Expert Witnesses, Which If Believed, Supported Its Case, Even Though It Ultimately Lost.

            Grotenhuis v. Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation District, Case No. A151781 (1^st Dist., Div. 3 June 15, 2018) (unpublished) was a case where a trial judge denied a costs-of-proof RFA motion after plaintiff won a contested negligence case. The major takeaways are two in number as far as defeating RFA costs-of-proof sanctions, which are increasingly being used by litigants to gain attorney’s fees and costs in cases where they are not recoverable under traditional fee/costs entitlement principles. The two takeaways are: (1) make sure you have lay and expert witness supporting your defense case; and (2) make sure you have at least one defense where trial and appellate judges believe you had a nice chance to win, even if you ultimately lose.

            What happened here is that defendant District lost a wrongful death suit by a plaintiff son whose mother suffered injuries leading to death when a District bus struck her in an intersection. Although the jury decided a negligence action in favor of plaintiff son, the theories on both sides were diametrically polar opposite in nature. Plaintiff’s son, for his mother, claimed she had the right of way in an intersection as a pedestrian, and that the District bus was speeding and hit her. In contrast, District basically contended that mother improperly ran into the intersection with her head down, colliding into the bus (meaning no liability or at least comparative negligence reduction for mother’s actions). Plaintiff had propounded requests for admissions, asking the defendant to admit liability in three ways—basic negligence, causation, and lack of comparative negligence. After the jury verdict, plaintiff moved for costs-of-proof sanctions based on the RFA denials, but the trial court refused to award them.  

            Although the jury verdict was affirmed on appeal, plaintiff cross-appealed the denial of costs-of-proof sanctions under CCP § 2033.420. This provision allows a trial judge to award fees and costs narrowly tailored to request for admission denials which are proven opposite at trial, but with certain exceptions—the main exception being that these sanctions are not warranted where the denials were reasonable and made in good faith. Here, the trial and appellate judges concluded that the negligence case was contested heavily, that the defense had lay and expert witnesses (which if believed) could have led to a different result, and that the comparative negligence issue given mother’s possible “charging of the bus” was a real contested issue. The reviewing court sustained the denial of costs-of-proof sanctions.

            So, the moral here, if you are the defense, is to make sure you have witnesses and a theory which would support denial of the requests for admissions. If so, you likely will prevail on this issue as the defense did in Grotenhuis.