Fourth District, Division 2 Affirms Trial Court’s Denial of RFA Costs of Proof Request.
In Chiang v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., Case Nos. E047560 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 3, 2010) (unpublished), a trial court rejected a defense request for an award of $60,493 in costs of proof sanctions against personal injury plaintiffs denying requests for admissions on the cause of an accident despite the fact the defense later won a summary judgment on the issue. Defendants appealed the RFA costs of proof denial.
They were not successful.
The appellate court was unsure if a summary judgment ruling could be equated to a finding of fact for purposes of the costs of proof statute. However, even assuming it was, plaintiffs had a reasonable basis to deny the RFAs at the discovery stage–one of the classic costs of proof sanctions exceptions justifying the lower court’s denial of any sanctions. Because plaintiffs could have rationally believed they would procure future sufficient evidence to prove their theory of the case, the trial court’s denial was no abuse of discretion.