Lower Court Reasonably Exercised Discretion on Costs-of-Proof Sanctions Request and Correctly Found $100,000 998 Offer Was Reasonable.
In Harman v. Safeway, Inc., Case No. A134891 (1st Dist., Div. 2 June 17, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff won a $5,060 personal injury jury verdict against Safeway after he was hit by a runaway grocery cart. Before the verdict, the lower court had allowed the defense to withdraw some request for admissions. After the verdict, it denied plaintiff’s request for costs-of-proof sanctions of $51,269.20 for the defense’s denial of certain liability and causation admission requests. The trial judge also granted the defense motion to recoup costs based on plaintiff’s rejection of a $100,000 CCP § 998 offer, awarding $35,092.50 in a net judgment to the defense (i.e., $40,152.50 gross costs minus the $5,060 verdict in plaintiff’s favor).
Plaintiff’s appeal of the costs-of-proof sanctions denial and 998 costs award did not garner any changes in the lower court’s rulings.
The costs-of-proof sanction request order relating to denied RFAs is reviewed under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. On the record before it, the appellate court saw no error because the contested RFAs mainly went to comparative fault, which was a heavily contested issue at trial. Beyond that, plaintiff was too greedy by asking for all expert costs reimbursement, even though he would have had to present this proof anyway.
That left the reviewing court to pass on the reasonableness of Safeway’s $100,000 998 offer, which settlement amount was offered again by Safeway at a mandatory settlement conference. This did not seem to be a problem given that Safeway had heavily contested causation also and plaintiff gambled in trying to beat a reasonable offer based on the discovery/investigation in the case at the time of the offer.