Request for Admissions | Resolving Discovery Disputes
Is there any chance you can send me a link to an example “meet & confer” However that is all good and dandy, but how to write a request for admission in. If a party fails to respond to a Request for Admissions entirely, the party who served the Request for . meet two important deadlines: the filing deadline and the. The requesting party has a right to “complete discovery you'll first have to engage in the meet-and-confer process with opposing counsel (see.
For example, if the bonding company contends that the action involving Phil Rauch and petitioner Westby was not one in which an attachment could properly issue, or that there were defects in the undertaking or affidavit supporting the writ of attachment, and that for either of these reasons a pretrial motion to discharge the attachment would have been likely of success see fn.
How to Enforce Request for Admissions | California Insurance Law Office of Bruce Cornblum
Or, if despite the fact that most matters relevant to the validity of an attachment are on the face of the various documents relating to the attachment see Kohler v. Agassiz, supra, 99 Cal.
Such information is not protected from disclosure under the holding in Flora Crane Service, Inc. In that case the defendants alleged as affirmative defenses 1 that the complaint failed to state a cause of action, 2 that there was a defect and misjoinder of parties defendant, and 3 that the complaint was ambiguous, unintelligible and uncertain.
The plaintiff served the defendants with interrogatories asking them to explain how the complaint failed to state a cause of action and how there was a defect and misjoinder of parties, and how and in what manner the complaint was ambiguous, unintelligible and uncertain. The interrogatories also asked the defendants to state all "contentions" underlying their affirmative defenses.
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's refusal to require answers to these interrogatories, reasoning that the trial court "was warranted in concluding that [several of] the interrogatories in question sought contentions, conclusions or legal arguments instead of facts" and that the trial court "may have felt that these defenses [other than failure to state a cause of action] were not properly pleaded The Court of Appeal further stated that the interrogatory relating to the defense of failure to state a cause of action both expressly and in substance sought the defendant's "legal opinion or contention" and invited the defendant to supply any material fact or facts not alleged in the complaint, thereby "shift[ing] to defendants [the plaintiff's] responsibility of pleading an actionable cause.
The Flora Crane Service case stands for the proposition that discovery ordinarily may not be employed either to elicit an opponent's legal reasoning or theories cf. It is possible that the interrogatories could be construed as requesting, inter alia, the bonding company's legal reasoning or theories.
Therefore the trial court would be warranted in ruling that insofar as they do they need not be answered. However, insofar as the interrogatories seek to ascertain the specific basis or bases, if any, for a contention that the attachment was vulnerable to pretrial attack, the trial court cannot refuse to compel answers on the basis that the interrogatories call for "legal opinion[s].
However, the court's basis for sustaining the objection, that it was a "shot gun question and in effect seeks to have the defendant divulge its entire theory of defense," is equally unsupportable.
First, the "shotgun" interrogatory condemned in West Pico Furniture Co. Second, although it may be a valid ground for objection that [71 Cal. The interrogatory should be taken at face value. Nor does this interrogatory call for all of the facts defendant intends to produce at the trial in support of its defenses.
It plainly does not seek to improperly "tie down" the bonding company. Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue 1 requiring respondent court to vacate its orders of July 25 and November 25,which respectively sustained objections to petitioners' requests for admissions and denied petitioners' motion for further responses to written interrogatories, and 2 directing the court to reconsider the objections and the motion and to make its orders in reference thereto in accordance with the views expressed herein.
The alternative writ of prohibition is discharged. Petitioners also seek a writ of prohibition to prohibit the respondent court from taking further proceedings in the action below No.
Timing Your Requests for Admission | CEBblog™
We granted both an alternative writ of mandate and an alternative writ of prohibition. However, we have concluded that a peremptory writ of mandate alone will provide sufficient relief at this stage in the proceedings. Since discovery ordinarily must be completed prior to any pretrial conference and in any event prior to trial see rule dCal. Rules of Courtit is implicit in a writ of mandate which directs the trial court to permit certain discovery that the pretrial conference and trial should not proceed until discovery has been satisfactorily completed or appropriate sanctions have been imposed Code Civ.
Mandate is ordinarily the sufficient and appropriate remedy for an improper denial of discovery e. In Oceanside Union School Dist. Attachment is an ancillary or provisional remedy to aid the collection of a money demand by seizure of property in advance of trial or judgment as security for satisfaction of a judgment for the attaching party.
The party whose property may be or is attached may prevent or release the attachment by 1 giving adequate security in place of the property Code Civ.
Of course a final judgment in favor of the party whose property has been attached also effects a discharge of the attachment. It is regularly issued when the requirements of sections [specifying contents of affidavit which party seeking attachment must file with the court in order to secure a writ of attachment] and [specifying nature of undertaking which party seeking attachment and two or more sufficient sureties must execute in order to secure a writ of attachment] are complied with.
Grounds for a motion to discharge an attachment include 1 the fact that the case is not one in which attachment may properly issue; 2 failure of the complaint, tested by pleading rules, to state any cause of action; 3 defects in the undertaking or affidavit; or 4 issuance of the writ for an amount greater than that stated in the affidavit. Improper levy of the writ--e. See 1 Witkin, supra, pp.
In a suit for damages for economic loss sustained as a result of a wrongful attachment, expenses incurred in successfully defending the underlying action on its merits are recoverable only upon allegation and proof that relief from the attachment could only be achieved by such a defense and not by any pretrial motion or proceeding based on one of the grounds just mentioned.
This is the import of an allegation, such as found in the complaint in the present case, that the attachment was "valid and regular on its face. Petitioners' necessary allegation that a successful defense of the action on the promissory note was the only way to discharge the attachment is an example of the type of conclusory allegation frequently permitted in California as an exception to the general rule that a complaint must contain only allegations of ultimate facts as opposed to allegations of evidentiary facts or of legal conclusions or arguments.
Thus, although impermissible conclusory allegations need not be answered and are not put at issue by a general denial see 2 Witkin, supra, at p.
The bonding company's general denial technically put in issue allegations in petitioners' complaint such as the following: Westby, Defendant,' NumberThereafter, on or about 22nd day of April,said Phil Rauch made application to this Court for a writ of attachment But woe betide the party who fails to serve responses before the hearing. In that instance the court has no discretion but to grant the admission motion, usually with fatal consequences for the defaulting party.
Timing Your Requests for Admission
Next, to emphasize where the trial court erred, the reviewed again the types of motions applicable to RFAs: We first address the nature of the Motion brought by real parties, because resolution of this issue is directly germane to the propriety of the challenged order. As discussed ante, there are three types of motions that a party propounding RFAs may initiate: It is clear for a number of reasons that the Motion was of the first-described type pursuant to section After noting that nowhere in the original Motion did the Defendants indicated that they sought anything other than to deem the RFAs admitted e.
The Court began by examining authority for what constitutes "substantial compliance" in the discovery context. Then the Court scrutinized the trial court's approach, finding it lacking: We turn to examine whether St. The court examined the individual RFA responses, determined that some 41 of them were not Code-compliant, and found—explicitly in its announced reasoning at the hearing, and implicitly in the subsequent order—that the remaining 64 RFA responses did, in fact, comply with section It therefore deemed admitted the RFAs corresponding with the 41 responses it determined to have been noncompliant, implicitly denying the deemed admitted Motion as to the responses to the remaining 64 RFAs.
We find no authority for this piecemeal approach to adjudicating a tardy, proposed RFA response filed by a responding party prior to the hearing on a deemed admitted motion. Subdivision c of section This suggests that the court evaluate qualitatively the proposed response to RFAs in toto to determine whether it substantially complies with the Code.
It does not permit the court to segregate each individual RFA response for the purpose of finding that portions of the document are Code-compliant and will therefore be acceptedwhile concluding that other portions are noncompliant and will thus be rejected. Furthermore, the fact that there is an effective statutory vehicle by which a propounding party may seek a court order compelling a responding party to cure individual RFA responses deemed not to be in compliance with section See City of Sacramento v.
Drew, supra, Cal. The Court next rejected the trial court's conclusion that language in addition to "admit" or "deny" is improper in a response to RFAs. The Court explained that reasonable qualifications are proper. In several of the RFAs reviewed by the Court, the Court noted that Plaintiff included fairly reasonable, but occasionally very long, explanations for denying various propositions.
As to this practice, the Court had some friendly advice: As we read St. Mary a set of interrogatories asking her to explain any of her responses to RFAs that were not unqualified admissions, she could have explained the reason for her partial denial of RFA number 91 in her interrogatory response.