 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. v. Whirlpool Corp.2/15/2002
equires such a result.
Section 2033, subdivision (o), states that a court shall order a party who failed to admit the truth of any matter when requested to do so in a request for admission to pay the reasonable expenses incurred in proving such matter. An award of such expenses is thus mandated unless certain exceptions apply. Here, Hose Supplier argued that the first such statutory exception applies: that "an objection to the request was sustained or a response to it was waived under subdivision (l)." (§ 2033, subd. (o)(1).) However, such exception does not apply to the facts here.
As to the first section of this exception, that "any objection to the request was sustained," it is up to the responding party, in other words, Hose Supplier, to seek a protective order from the court to avoid answering any requests. (§ 2033, subd. (e)(1).) Thus, if the responding party moves for a protective order objecting to a request for admissions, and such objection is sustained, the trial court need not make an order requiring the responding party to pay any expenses pursuant to section 2033, subdivision (o). Here, Hose Supplier presented no evidence that it ever sought a protective order, or that any objections it made to Insurer's requests were ever sustained.
As to the second section of this exception, that "a response to [a request for admissions] was waived under subdivision (l)," we first note that there is no duty on the propounding party to seek an order forcing the responding party to respond. Instead, the propounding party may move to compel a further response if the initial response is incomplete or evasive, or if an objection to a particular request is without merit or too general. (§ 2033, subd. (l).) If the propounding party fails to notice a motion to compel further responses within 45 days of the service of the response, the propounding party waives only the right to compel further responses to a request for admission. (Ibid.) All that is waived is the right to compel a further response; the right to seek an award of reasonable expenses pursuant to section 2033, subdivision (o) is not waived.
Here, Hose Supplier responded with blunt denials and boilerplate objections, not "evasive or incomplete" responses. (§ 2033, subd. (l).) When, as here, a defendant denies a request for admission submitted by the plaintiff, it is well-established that the defendant cannot be forced to admit the fact prior to trial, even if it is obviously true. (Wimberly, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at p. 634; Smith v. Circle P. Ranch Co. (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 267, 273; Holguin v. Superior Court (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 812, 820.)
Thus, it would have been pointless for Insurer to bring a motion under section 2033, subdivision (l) to compel Hose Supplier to admit the truth of the facts in question before it was entitled to seek an award of expenses pursuant to section 2033, subdivision (o). The law neither does nor requires idle acts. (Civ. Code, § 3532.) Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err by implicitly concluding that the exception contained in section 2033, subdivision (o)(1), did not apply to prevent it from awarding Insurer its reasonable expenses against Hose Supplier.
4. Insurer "Proved" the Facts in the Requests for Admissions
Hose Supplier also contends that the trial court erred by failing to apply the requirement of section 2033, subdivision (o), that the party seeking an award of reasonable expenses must have "thereafter prove . . . the truth of [any matter requested to be admitted]." (§ 2033, subd. (o).) According to Hose Supplier, Insurer did not subsequently prove the truth of the facts which Hose Supplier failed to admit, because
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|