Requests For Admission: Costs-Of-Proof Sanctions Properly Denied Based On Ambiguity Of Requests And No Substantial Importance For Negligence Issues In Play

No Abuse Of Discretion Demonstrated.

            In Cleveland v. Taft Union High School Dist., Case No. F080084 (5^th Dist. Mar. 25, 2022) (unpublished), plaintiff obtained a $2 million negligence verdict against District in assessing the threat posed by a student who shot plaintiff in the stomach with a shotgun.  Plaintiff then moved for RFA costs-of-proof sanctions under CCP § 2033.420 for denying RFAS about “violent threats” for incidents occurring 11 months before the shooting.  Both the trial and appellate court agreed that no RFA sanctions should be levied against the defense.  The term “violent threats” was ambiguous, so that alone justified denial of sanctions.  Beyond that, however, these previous incidents were not crucial to a determination of negligence to an event occurring 11 months later, such that the trial judge could reasonably determine that the RFAs were not of substantial importance in the case.