The Need For Precision In Allocating Fee Recovery Under CCP § 2033.420 Is Made Clear Here.
In Flores v. Medical Holdings, Inc., Case No. B317695 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 20, 2023) (unpublished), the defense propounded denied RFAs on statute of limitation issues, ultimately prevailing on this issue at trial. Feeling emboldened, the defense moved for costs-of-proof sanctions under CCP § 2033.420. The lower court denied the motion, a determination affirmed on appeal.
There were two main problems with why the lower court’s ruling was no abuse of discretion. First, some of the “lateness” RFAs did not focus solely on the statute of limitations issue, but also merits determinations—with case law establishing that sanctions are only narrowly allowed with respect to costs incurred in making that proof (i.e., relating solely to the SOL defense). (See, e.g., Garcia v. Hyster Co., 28 Cal.App.4th 724, 737-738 (1994); Grace v. Mansourian, 240 Cal.App.4h 523, 529-530 (2015).) Second, although the RFA denial relating to SOL tolling might have been a winner, the defense did not separately account for any such fees as the statute requires. So, the outtake of this one is to request, with precision, costs of proof amounts tethered to specific issues in order to be successful.