Courts Don’t Like Discovery Gotcha Tactics.

Discovery responses to requests for admissions [RFAs] were served four days late, subsequent to the responding party twice being ignored after requesting a two-week extension to respond. The requesting party moved the trial court to have all 119 RFAs deemed admitted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 (b). The court deemed discovery consisting of 41 RFAs to be admitted and sanctioned the responding party. In reversing, as well as providing a primer for dealing with RFAs, the appellate court noted:  “The purpose of the RFA discovery procedure is to expedite trials and to eliminate the need for proof when matters are not legitimately contested. [] The RFA device is not intended to provide a windfall to litigants. Nor is the RFA procedure a “gotcha” device in which an overly aggressive propounding party—who rejects facially reasonable requests for a short discovery extension . . .”  (St. Mary v. Sup. Ct. (Thomas Schellenberg and Katherine Mills)  (Cal. App. Sixth Dist.; January 31, 2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, [167 Cal.Rptr.3d 517].)