"Cost of Proof Sanctions"

Cost of proof sanctions are designed to compensate for unnecessary expenses resulting from proving matters unreasonably denied. You don’t have to win the lawsuit to be awarded these sanctions. Weil and Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 2010), ¶8:1405 citing Smith v. Circle P Ranch Co., Inc. (1978) 87 CA3d, 267, 276. They way to win this motion is to set it up from the beginning.

Answering Requests for Admissions is very similar to answering interrogatories-you have an obligation to respond in good faith and you have to be careful about your garbage objections. However, the code makes it clear that the requirements in responding to Requests for Admissions are higher. The Discovery Act does not have such strident language for responding to interrogatories or an inspection demand. This is because Requests for Admissions are not designed to uncover factual information. Rather, their main purpose is to set issues at rest by compelling admission of things that cannot reasonably be controverted. Weil and Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 2010), ¶8:1256 citing Shepard & Morgan v. Lee & Daniel, Inc. (1982) 31 C3d 256,261.
Continue Reading Answering Requests for Admissions-Beware of the Traps

If you are like most lawyers, you are using the typical discovery devices to gather up all your information–form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and of course the deposition schedule from Hell. However, requests for admissions are rarely in a party’s discovery plan. I suggest you take a closer look at CCP Section 2033.010 (pdf) et seq. Requests for admissions are wonderful, tricky little discovery devices that really help you set up your case. Let me explain why.
Continue Reading Why Aren’t You Using Requests for Admissions