Second District, Division 6 Reverses Substantial Award, While Second District, Division 5 Affirms Failure to Award RFA Fee Recovery.
In our category “Cases: Discovery,” we have explored prior cases, some of which have granted substantial attorney’s fees award to litigants convincing lower courts that an opponent unreasonably denied discovery requests for admission of substantial importance. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 2033.420(a); Brooks v. ABC, 179 Cal.App.3d 500, 508 (1986); Miller v. American Greetings Corp., 161 Cal.App.4th 1055, 1066 (2008).) In the next two cases, appellate courts refused to grant RFA cost of proof fees, reversing a result in one and affirming a denial in the other.
The Second District, Division 6, in Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Parks, Cases Nos. B199364 & B200267 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Jan. 28, 2009) (certified for partial publication; RFA ruling unpublished), insured did pretty well against an insurer, winning a jury verdict of $3,245,333.76 as well as costs of $70,104.23 and $426,208 in attorney’s fees as costs of proof sanctions for insurer’s failure to admit certain matters in response to insured’s requests for admissions. On appeal, the RFA sanctions award was reversed. The appellate court found that the insurer had a reasonable basis for trying the disputed insurance issues, buttressed by the fact insurer had denied insured’s earlier motion for summary adjudication on a bad faith claim, a prior motion in limine on a notice issue, and a motion for directed verdict on an automobile exclusion issue. These prior wins demonstrated insurer did not lack reasonable bases to believe that it might prevail. So, poof, almost $500,000 in RFA sanctions went up in smoke.
A sister division, Division 5 of the Second District, affirmed the denial of RFA sanctions in Olivas v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. B203000 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 28, 2009) (unpublished), which involved a plaintiff winning $87,472 in a bench trial against Los Angeles for tripping over a “dangerous condition” on a public sidewalk (i.e., 3” roots). Plaintiff also sought RFA costs of proof fees of $87,638.25 expended in proving matter that were the subject of RFAs denied by the City. The trial court denied the request, a ruling affirmed on appeal. There were no prior complaints or similar accidents in the alleged area of the “dangerous condition,” leaving City plenty of leeway to argue the condition was not dangerous or was trivial in nature. The lower court’s refusal to grant RFA sanctions was not an abuse of discretion under the circumstances.