Page 3
Court of Appeal:
Objections Don’t Void Late Request-for-Admission Answers
Justices Say That Although, by Statute, a Tardy Responder Has Waived Objections, Improper Inclusion of Them in Proposed Answers Does Not Necessarily Mean a Lack of ‘Substantial Compliance’ With Prescribed Format
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has held that where a party fails to respond timely to requests for admission, thereby waiving objections, a judge is not foreclosed from denying an ensuing motion to deem the matters admitted where answers are provided prior to the hearing, even if objections are improperly set forth.
Such a motion must be granted, under Code of Civil Procedure §2033.280(c), unless the judge “finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” That section requires, in subd. (a), that “[e]ach answer in a response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.”
Then-Riverside Superior Court Judge L. Jackson Lucky IV (now an arbitrator/mediator) granted the deemed-admitted motion by defendants in a suit over a real estate transaction, ruling that the belated answers by plaintiff Takao Katayama were not in “substantial compliance” with §2033.220 because a preface included objections. They included one based on the attorney-client and work-product privileges.
Sec. §2033.280(a) spells out that “[t]he party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product….”
In light of the deemed admissions, Katayama was foreclosed from presenting evidence at trial contradicting the admissions, which precluded putting on a case, and the pre-trial motion by defendants Continental Investment Group, Andrew Chang, and Linda Chang for a nonsuit was granted by Judge Harold W. Hopp, who had taken over the case.
O’Leary’s Opinion
Presiding Justice Kathleen O’Leary authored Wednesday’s opinion which reverses the judgment in favor of the defendants. She wrote:
“[I]f Katayama’s objections are ignored, it is clear his substantive answers were far more ‘complete and straightforward’ than not….Then, even after incorporating his objections into our assessment, we conclude the grounds asserted—relevance, admissibility, and privileges—did not negate the complete and straightforward nature of the answers because none of the objections claimed an inability to understand and respond to the [requests].”
O’Leary added:
“Our conclusion on substantial compliance is reinforced by the alternative ways to address objections in a proposed response other than treating their presence as an all-or-nothing issue. For example, the trial court’s order on the deemed admissions motion could have specified a reasonable amount of time for Katayama to provide an actual response that did not include objections unless an order relieving him from their waiver was secured through the waiver relief protocol….
“The alternatives support flexibility for trial court discretion when adjudicating ‘substantial compliance.’…A tolerant construction of the phrase also comports with…California’s public policy interest in allowing parties to litigate the merits of their claims.”
Nature of Answers
The presiding justice continued:
“[W]e hold that the assertion of waived objections does not necessarily prevent ‘substantial compliance with Section 2033.220’ as required by section 2033.280(c). Compliance analysis should prioritize the nature of the substantive answers in the proposed response. While waived objections should be a factor in the assessment, their presence should primarily be addressed through the amount of mandatory monetary sanctions imposed. In this matter, we conclude the trial court erred in finding that Katayama’s proposed response did not substantially comply with section 2033.220.”
She elaborated in a footnote:
“As a hypothetical example of objections controlling substantial compliance analysis: if a proposed response contained nothing but waived objections, then the lack of substantive answers would likely justify a conclusion that the response was not as complete and straightforward as reasonably possible and therefore not substantially compliant with section 2033.220 as required by section 2033.280(c). Similarly, if a response included objections aimed at the form of the underlying requests for admission, such that the responding party was disclaiming an ability to comprehend the requests, those type of objections could also justify a conclusion that the response was not as complete and straightforward as reasonably possible.”
In addition to reversing the defense judgment, the opinion orders that the matter be retried “(if Katayama so chooses),” that the order granting the deemed-admitted motion be vacated and denied, and that limited further discovery be permitted.
The case is Katayama v. Continental Investment Group, 2024 S.O.S. 3947.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company