Requests For Admission: Plaintiff Entitled To Costs Of Proof Sanctions Expenses, With Lower Court Improperly Shifting Burden Of Proof On Exceptions To Propounding, Rather Than Responding, Party With Respect To RFA Responses

Record Showed That Defense Failed To Prove Exceptions For Its RFA Denial Responses.

           In Samsky v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. B293885 (2d Dist., Div. 8 June 26, 2019) (published), a lower court denied plaintiff’s request for “costs of proof sanctions” based on defense denial of requests for admissions under CCP § 2033.420.  That RFA costs of proof sanctions denial order was reversed on appeal, remanding with directions that the trial court had to grant reasonable costs of proof sanctions under the circumstances. 

            The overarching infirmity was that the lower court improperly shifted the burden of proof in this area.  Specifically, the lower court impermissibly required the propounding party, not the responding party, to show the nonexistence of RFA denial exceptions such as immateriality and good faith denial.  That was the responding party’s burden, not the burden for the propounding party—with this published decision clarifying the burden of proof under CCP § 2033.420.  But there was more.  Substantial evidence showed that the defense failed to show justifiable grounds for denying certain requests such that the matter was remanded for a hearing to award reasonable “costs of proof sanctions” to plaintiff.