Too Draconian Of A Result, So Monetary Sanctions Had To Be Revisited.
In Katayama v. Continental Investment Group, Case No. G063872 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 9, 2024) (published), a lower court admitted certain RFAs because the responding party made objections which had been waived even though that party did provide proposed responses. Monetary sanctions of $1,810 were also ordered. After a trial resulting in a nonsuit based on the RFAs deemed admitted, the 4/3 DCA reversed in an opinion authored by Presiding Justice O’Leary. The panel believed that the aggrieved appellant did substantially comply, and that the matter was better handled by a monetary sanction rather than an effective issue preclusion. On remand, the monetary sanctions award had to be revisited, although we believe it likely will stick.