In The End, $1,960 In Cost-Of-Proof Fees Were Awarded (Out Of A Requested $81,875) And $25,741.20 Routine Costs Requests Denied In Entirety.
We do have a category entitled “Requests for Admissions.” This next opinion reinforces posts and lessons we have made in the past on this topic with respect to costs-of-proof sanctions relating to RFAs.
Hanna Carroll Restaurant Group LLC v. Hagestad, Case No. G065313 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 29, 2026) (published), involved a situation where defendant denied a food/catering contract RFA (even though made in multiple parts), with a jury determining that defendant owed $60,391. Plaintiff then moved for RFA costs-of-proof sanctions of $81,875 and routine costs of $25,741.20 in court reporter costs, all subject to challenges by the defense. The lower court found that a portion of the contract formation RFA should have been answered, that the plaintiff did not delineate the costs incurred to prove the RFA denial (instead asking for all litigation efforts in some respect through trial after the RFA denial), and that costs were not allowable because the court reporter work was not ordered by the court. The lower court only awarded $1,960 in cost-of-proof fees, prompting an appeal by both sides. The defense argued no costs-of-proof sanctions were appropriate, while plaintiff argued that the court reporter expenses should have been recovered.
All results got affirmed on appeal. Justice Moore, author of the 3-0 opinion, published on two points: (1) the defense had to answer an RFA, in part, meaning the party could not deny the entire request but had to admit the proper parts of the RFA; and (2) plaintiff must precisely identify appropriate costs-of-proof fees, rather than simply asking for overbroad litigation expenses (from the date of RFA denial through trial) without proper specification and try to improperly “outsource” that task to the lower court for purposes of determining what was appropriate.
BLOG OBSERVATION—The appellate court did admit that the main RFA by Plaintiff had multiple parts (ancillary parts which were objectionable), but it emphasized there was a duty to admit the portion that can be admitted—not make a blanket denial. This is a practice tip for litigators when dealing with RFAs.