{"id":895592,"date":"2019-03-06T16:06:14","date_gmt":"2019-03-06T23:06:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=895592"},"modified":"2019-03-06T16:06:19","modified_gmt":"2019-03-06T23:06:19","slug":"denial-of-request-for-admission-based-on-experts-opinion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/denial-of-request-for-admission-based-on-experts-opinion\/","title":{"rendered":"Reasonableness of Denial of Requests for Admission Based Upon Expert\u2019s Opinions Depends On Factors Within Party\u2019s Understanding"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Stephen M. Tye and Lawrence S. Zucker II | Haight Brown & Bonesteel<\/a> | January 16, 2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Orange County Water District v. The Arnold Engineering Company<\/em> (D070763), the Fourth Appellate District examined the criteria for evaluating the reasonableness of a parties\u2019 denial of requests for admission (RFA\u2019s) based upon their expert\u2019s opinions and the proof required to recover costs for unreasonable denials.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Orange County Water District<\/em>, the Orange County Water District (the District) sued several current and former owners and operators of industrial sites, including The Arnold Engineering Company (Arnold), to recover expenses associated with groundwater cleanup efforts intended to address groundwater contamination caused by volatile organic compounds (VOC\u2019s) and other chemicals. Over six years, the parties conducted extensive discovery, including document productions, depositions, and soil sampling and monitoring.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Six months before trial, Arnold served the District with RFA\u2019s asking it to admit that (1) Arnold did not release specific VOC\u2019s during its business operations at the site, (2) Arnold did not release specific VOC\u2019s that caused contamination of groundwater in the area, and (3) Arnold did not contribute to VOC contamination in the soil or groundwater in the area. The District denied these RFA\u2019s, in part based upon the District\u2019s expert\u2019s opinions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Following a trial during which parties presented testimony from lay witnesses regarding Arnold\u2019s activities and qualified experts, who summarized Arnold\u2019s activities and opined on their impact, the trial court issued a statement of decision. The trial court found in favor of all defendants, including Arnold, and that the District had not shown that Arnold had released VOC\u2019s into the environment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After judgment was entered, Arnold moved for an award of costs of proof against the District based on its refusal to admit RFA\u2019s during discovery. The trial court awarded approximately $313,000 in attorneys\u2019 fees and approximately $300,000 in experts\u2019 fees. The District appealed the judgment itself (See Orange County Water Dist. V. Alcoa Global Fasteners, Inc.<\/em>(2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 252) and the order awarding costs of proof. The latter was stayed until the former was affirmed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Section 2033.420 makes mandatory an award of costs of proof where a party responding to a request fails to admit the genuineness of the truth of any matter and the party requesting that admission thereafter proves the truth of that matter unless \u201c[t]he party failing to make the admission had reasonable ground to believe that the party would prevail on the matter\u201d or \u201c[t]here was other good reason for the failure to admit.\u201d In evaluating the reasonableness of the District\u2019s denials, the appellate court relied heavily on Brooks v. Am. Broad. Co.<\/em> (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 500 and its progeny, which hold a party\u2019s denial must be based on a reasonable belief that they believe they would prevail on the issue at trial in light of the evidence at hand at the time of the denial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In recognition that a party may be unable to fully assess an expert\u2019s choice of methodology and the substance of their analysis, the appellate court held the proper criteria for determining reasonableness of a party\u2019s denial was the factors within the reasonable understanding of a party, such as:<\/p>\n\n\n\n