Skip to content
  • Latest
2024 Success Stories
  • Call Today: 310.444.9060
  • Probate Services
    ▼
    • Trust & Will Disputes
    • Fiduciary Misconduct
    • Property Disputes
    • Elder Financial Abuse
    • Trust & Estate Administration
    • Conservatorship
    • Guardianship
    • Probate Appeals
  • Who We Help
    ▼
    • Executor / Administrator
    • Trustee
    • Beneficiary
    • Spouse
    • Power of Attorney
    • Conservator
    • Guardian
    • Creditor
  • Our Firm
    ▼
    • Attorneys
    • Staff
    • Careers
    • 10th Anniversary
  • Learn
    ▼
    • Blog
    • Case Studies
    • Newsletters
    • Testimonials
    • Whitepapers
  • Request a Consultation
  • Probate Services
    • Trust & Will Disputes
    • Fiduciary Misconduct
    • Property Disputes
    • Elder Financial Abuse
    • Trust & Estate Administration
    • Conservatorship
    • Guardianship
    • Probate Appeals
  • Who We Help
    • Executor / Administrator
    • Trustee
    • Beneficiary
    • Spouse
    • Power of Attorney
    • Conservator
    • Guardian
    • Creditor
  • Our Firm
    • Attorneys
    • Staff
    • Careers
    • 10th Anniversary
  • Learn
    • Blog
    • Case Studies
    • Newsletters
    • Testimonials
    • Whitepapers
  • Request a Consultation
  • Probate Services
    • Trust & Will Disputes
    • Fiduciary Misconduct
    • Property Disputes
    • Elder Financial Abuse
    • Trust & Estate Administration
    • Conservatorship
    • Guardianship
    • Probate Appeals
  • Who We Help
    • Executor / Administrator
    • Trustee
    • Beneficiary
    • Spouse
    • Power of Attorney
    • Conservator
    • Guardian
    • Creditor
  • Our Firm
    • Attorneys
    • Staff
    • Careers
    • 10th Anniversary
  • Learn
    • Blog
    • Case Studies
    • Newsletters
    • Testimonials
    • Whitepapers
  • Request a Consultation

Home » Blog » Admit it! The Substantial Implications of Denying Requests for Admission

Last Updated: April 11, 2024

Admit it! The Substantial Implications of Denying Requests for Admission

Search

In a recent decision,[1] the California Court of Appeal upheld a post-trial cost of proof award of over $600,000 against a party who failed to admit certain Requests for Admission (“RFA”) during the pre-trial discovery process! This case highlights the significant risk of failing to admit RFAs which a party knows or should know are true, and sheds some light on a very powerful tool for litigators to use against a recalcitrant opposing party.

Orange County Water District v. The Arnold Engineering Co.[2] came before the Fourth District Court of Appeal following a post-judgment award granting the Arnold Engineering Co. (“Arnold”) $615,000 in costs of proof under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420 (“Section 2033.420”)[3]. The Orange County Water District (the “District”) had denied (without proper basis) certain fact-specific RFAs propounded by Arnold to which the District should have admitted. The trial court found that Arnold was entitled to recover the costs that it incurred to prove those particular facts at trial. In other words, had the District admitted those facts in its responses to the RFAs, then Arnold would not have had to continue to incur costs and fees associated with the continued litigation and ultimate proof of those facts up to and through the time of trial.

The primary issues in the litigation between Arnold and the District were whether or not Arnold had released certain chemicals into the ground during its 24-year operation at the subject contamination site, and whether Arnold’s release of said chemicals resulted in groundwater contamination. At trial, both parties presented evidence from both lay and expert witnesses regarding the chemicals that were used by Arnold and its successors at the site, as well as the levels and cause of contamination of the groundwater. But notably, during the discovery process, the District had denied Arnold’s discovery Request to Admit that certain specific chemicals were released and/or caused groundwater contamination, despite the fact that these RFAs were served on the District six months before trial, after more than six years of litigation, and the District possessed sufficient information at that time to accurately admit or deny these requests.

Based upon the remedy provided in Section 2033.420, the trial court awarded Arnold $313,000 in attorneys’ fees and $300,000 in expert fees, finding that the District did not have a reasonable basis for denying the above-referenced RFAs during the discovery process.

In determining whether the District should be liable for the costs of proof awarded to Arnold by the trial court, the Court of Appeals considered the plain language of Section 2033.420, which provides that a court “shall” make such a fee shifting award unless: (i) an objection to the discovery request was sustained or a response was waived; (ii) the admission was of no substantial importance; (iii) the party failing to admit had reasonable ground to believe it would prevail on the issue; or (iv) there was other good reason for failing to admit.

So what constitutes a “good reason” for denying a RFA such that a party will be exempt from a cost of proof award under Section 2033.420? A court will look to whether at the time the denial was made and in light of the evidence, the denying party “had a reasonable, good faith belief he or she would prevail on the issue at trial.”[4] A party’s belief must be “grounded in the evidence; it cannot be based merely on ‘hope or a roll of the dice.’”[5] This requires “not only an assessment of the substantiality of the evidence for and against the issue known or available to the party, but also the credibility of that evidence.”

Thus, the fact that the denying party ultimately does not succeed on the issue at trial does not necessitate their payment of costs of proof if the party had a “reasonable basis” to believe it could prevail. Among other things, a denying party should take into account the credibility and persuasiveness of expert opinion evidence as it relates to the RFA’s in question.[6] Even where a party’s expert is not ultimately believed at trial, that expert’s opinion may be a valid basis for the party’s previous denial of an RFA. But when relying on an expert opinion for such purposes, a  party should cautiously consider whether the expert has sufficient experience and qualifications, whether the expert’s opinion will be admissible at trial, whether the opinions are supported by other admissible evidence, the reasonableness of the expert’s methodology, and the logic of the expert’s analysis.[7] In some cases (including this one), a party’s reliance on an expert’s opinion to deny an RFA has been found to be unreasonable, including when the expert was not properly disclosed or when their deposition testimony was inadmissible.[8] Naturally, reliance on an expert’s opinion is improper where the expert is clearly unqualified, and such a reliance will not shield a party from later costs of proof.[9]

This case should encourage parties to think twice before responding to a discovery Requests for Admission with a blanket denial, especially when the available evidence clearly does not support such a position.

——————————-

[1] Decision certified for partial publication.
[2] Orange Cnty. Water Dist. v. The Arnold Eng’g Co. (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 96.
[3] Section 2033.420 states in pertinent part: “If a party fails to admit the genuineness of any document or the truth of any matter when requested to do so under this chapter, and if the party requesting that admission thereafter proves the genuineness of that document or the truth of that matter, the party requesting the admission may move the court for an order requiring the party to whom the request was directed to pay the reasonable expenses incurred in making that proof, including reasonable attorney’s fees.”
[4] Id. at 368 (emphasis in original), citing Grace v. Mansourian (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 523, 529.
[5] Id. at 366, citing Grace v. Mansourian, 240 Cal.App.4th at 532.
[6] Id. at 367.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.

Share Post
PrevPreviousDaily Journal Article Published Following Keystone’s Blog Post
Read NextA Shortcut Procedure for Suing a Decedent Without Involving the Probate CourtNext

Related Articles

KLG-VERLAN-POST
Super Lawyers Selects Partner Verlan Kwan as One of the Top 50 Women Lawyers
Read More
KLG-SHAWN-POST
Managing Partner Shawn Kerendian Recognized as a Leader of Influence: Thriving in Their 40’s
Read More
shutterstock_2304763731-cropped
2024 Success Stories
Read More
Signing contract and buying agricultural machines and farming equipment
Restoring Ownership of Home — and Justice — for Financially Exploited Elder
Read More
Close up of hands using phone
Shutting Down a Scandal: Protecting a Son’s Legacy From Influencer’s Social Media Attacks 
Read More
talking with trustee
Keeping the Peace in Decades-Old Family Feud
Read More
senior caucasian man open mail letter sign contract document at home
Securing Multimillion-Dollar Settlement for Nephew of Hollywood Icon Without Litigation
Read More
Angry neighbours having argument near fence outdoors
Using a Summary Judgment Motion to Shut Down a Baseless Trust Dispute
Read More
Contract, signature and attorney consulting a client in his office with legal paperwork or agreement
Safeguarding Daughter’s Inheritance From Trust Mismanagement
Read More
Subscribe to The Keystone Quarterly  

Stay up to date with the latest news in the exciting world of probate law through our quarterly newsletter, The Keystone Quarterly. 

Each issue provides insight into the latest probate developments, delves into some of Keystone’s more interesting cases, and gives important updates about our firm. The Keystone Quarterly is a must-read for attorneys and clients alike.

Linkedin Instagram Facebook
Contact
  • 11300 West Olympic Blvd.
    Suite 910
    Los Angeles, CA 90064
  • 310.444.9060
Contact Us
Linkedin Instagram Facebook
Company
  • Our Firm
  • Attorneys
  • Staff
  • Careers
  • 10th Anniversary
Probate Services
  • Trust & Will Disputes
  • Fiduciary Misconduct
  • Property Disputes
  • Elder Financial Abuse
  • Trust & Estate Administration
  • Conservatorship
  • Guardianship
  • Probate Appeals
Who We Help
  • Executor / Administrator
  • Trustee
  • Beneficiary
  • Spouse
  • Power of Attorney
  • Conservator
  • Guardian
  • Creditor
Learn
  • Blog
  • Case Studies
  • Newsletters
  • Testimonials
  • Whitepapers
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Sitemap
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Sitemap

©2025 Keystone Law Group, P.C. All rights reserved.

This website is for general information purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. Connection to this website, and communication to this law firm via email or other electronic transmission do not constitute an attorney-client relationship with Keystone Law Group, P.C. unless a separate written agreement is signed by you and Keystone Law Group, P.C. as to the nature of any relationship and the amount to be charged for the intended legal services.

Manage Cookie Consent
We use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. We do this to improve browsing experience and to show personalized ads. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage {vendor_count} vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}