RFA Denials Were Properly Based On Documents Which Would Not Necessarily Conclude An Implied License Was At Issue.
We have posted, many times, on “costs of proof” sanctions under CCP § 2033.420. Most generally, these awards or denial of requests under that provision are factually oriented. Badger v. Terribilini, Case No. A161178 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 28, 2021) (unpublished), confirms that this is the usual case. There, a dispute arose as to whether there was an irrevocable license on an adjacent lot, with the trial court determining there was an implied license not facially dependent on the express wording of the recorded documents. The trial judge denied “costs of proof” sanctions, a ruling affirmed on appeal. The RFA denials were made in good faith given that intent is subject to proof, and nothing showed that the contested issues were denied wrongfully given the heavily-contested intent issue.