The Record Showed The Existence Of At Least One Of The Four Exceptions To The Otherwise Mandatory Fee Award Under Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.420.
In Figg v. Mann, Case No. D078585 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 19, 2021) (unpublished), prevailing personal injury plaintiff appealed the trial court’s denial of his motion to recover his costs of proof against defendant for failure to admit to any of plaintiff’s injuries prior to trial – arguing that the award was mandatory under Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.420.
The 4/1 DCA found no abuse of discretion. There are four exceptions to the mandatory costs of proof awards under § 2033.420: “(1) that an objection to the request was sustained or a response to the request was waived; (2) the admission sought was of no substantial importance; (3) the party failing to make the admission had reasonable ground to believe that the party would prevail on the matter; or (4) there was other good reason for the failure to admit the request.” (Laabs v. City of Victorville, 163 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1276 (2008).) The record in this case showed that plaintiff had opposed defendant’s attempts, no less than seven times, to obtain an expert medical examination that would have reasonably enabled defendant to admit or deny the requests for admission. This created at least one clear reason that the trial court might have found a statutory exception to the mandatory award of costs – the “good cause” exception. Based on the abuse of discretion review in this case – a “deferential standard of review . . . [that] requires [the reviewing court] to uphold the trial court’s determination . . . so long as it is reasonable” (Bloxham v. Saldinger, 228 Cal.App.4th 729, 753 (2014)) and determination as to whether any of the four exceptions apply falls “within the sound discretion of the trial court” (Brooks v. American Broadcasting Co., 179 Cal.App.3d 500, 508 (1986)), the panel affirmed.