RFA Denial Was on Legal Accuracy of Survey, And On A Non-Key Issue.
Litigants in Bloxham v. Saldinger, Case No. H038040 (6th Dist. Aug. 1, 2014) (published) were involved in a common boundary line dispute, involving surveys going back as far as 1858, as well as consideration of such arcane doctrines as obliterated corners—something only real estate litigators could love.
The prevailing party then sought recovery of $123,196.58 in costs of proof sanctions for the losing party’s failure to admit one RFA, but the lower court denied the request.
The appellate court affirmed. Under CCP § 2033.420(a), (b), the RFA denial had to be in bad faith, directed to a substantial issue, and one which readily could be denied based on percipient or even expert knowledge available to the denying party. In this case, the RFA was not done in bad faith (the losing party toured the property and had basis to deny), was directed to an insubstantial issue (a grant deed description which was not the critical line location dispute), and could not be readily answered based on divergent information (each side having differing views on the issue).
Finally, although not really articulated, we believe the appellate court did not necessarily believe that all of the requested costs of proof were actually incurred on this one RFA denial as opposed to litigating other variant issues in the case—with fees and expenses being claimed in excess to what was involved on the one denied RFA.