Plaintiffs’ Lack Of Success At Trial Does Not Demonstrate That They Acted Unreasonably Or In Bad Faith In Denying Requests For Admissions Propounded By Defendants.
In Walter v. Estate Strategies, Case No. B280172 (2d Dist., Div. 6 December 5, 2022) (unpublished), defendants moved for and were awarded $1,000,981.50 in costs of proof sanctions, under Code Civ. Proc., section 2033.420, after defeating plaintiffs’ claims at trial. Plaintiffs appealed – arguing that their denials to Requests for Admission were reasonable because the requests improperly sought conclusions of law or conclusions based on facts they were not requested to admit.
The 2/6 DCA agreed – finding there was good reason for plaintiffs’ failure to admit and that plaintiffs had reasonable ground to believe they would prevail. (See § 2033.420(b)(3)-(4); Grace v. Mansourian, 240 Cal.App.4th 523, 529 (2015).) Plaintiffs had the same reason for denying the requests for admission, for successfully opposing defendants’ motions for summary judgment, and for going to trial – they believed they would prevail on their claims, which were supported by evidentiary bases and qualified expert witnesses. (Universal Home Improvement, Inc. v. Robertson, 51 Cal.App.5th 116, 130-132 (2020) [reasonable basis to deny RFAs shown 40 where responding party later defeated propounding party’s motion for summary judgment and presented evidence at trial to contest each RFA]; Orange County Water Dist. v. The Arnold Engineering Co., 31 Cal.App.5th 96, 116 (2018) [“expert opinion evidence may provide a party with a reasonable ground to believe it will prevail on a matter covered by an RFA”].)