RFAs Were Not Worded Correctly And Not Of Substantial Importance.
If you are going for RFA costs-of-proof sanctions under CCP § 2033.420, you should make sure that the RFAs are properly worded to get at facts which must be proven at trial. They also must be requested at a juncture of the case where a plaintiff knows the proof that is going to be presented. Barnes v. Martinez, Case No. G061981 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 29, 2024) (unpublished) demonstrates the wrong way to craft RFAs, resulting in a denial of costs-of-proof sanctions.
There, prevailing defendant sent out some RFAs, most of which asked plaintiff at the beginning of her case involving stolen jewelry/personal property to admit that he had no facts, documents, or witnesses to support his claims against the prevailing defendant who obtained a defense verdict in a jury trial (her husband was hit with a civil verdict, but wife—the prevailing defendant—was exonerated). The lower court denied prevailing defendant’s requests for costs-of-proof sanctions to the tune of $67,177.38.
The 4/3 DCA, in a 3-0 opinion by Justice Delaney, affirmed. Initially, prevailing defendant failed to provide an adequate record by not providing any trial evidence to support her arguments as to why the costs-of-proof denial was an abuse of discretion. Next, the RFA requests were not crafted well because plaintiff did not have zero proof but simply had the jury find the circumstantial evidence proffered unpersuasive in nature—in so concluding, the appellate court said it would have been better to have asked plaintiff to prove facts such as she didn’t possess any stolen property or that she didn’t pawn any of the items taken by her husband. Finally, the RFAs about having no witnesses or documents were not of substantial importance because they merely concerned how plaintiff would prove his claims, made at an early juncture of the case such that these requests would not have expedited the trial.
Comments