Daily Blast January 31, 2015

In January, the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five (San Francisco), published its opinion in Gonsalves v. Li (2015) 232 Cal.App.4th 1406, analyzing whether denials of requests for admission (RFAs) could be introduced as evidence at trial. (Id. at p. 1414.) The court held that RFAs could not be introduced as evidence at trial because litigation conduct was not a legitimate subject for inquiry in ordinary cases. (Id. at p. 1417.)

Ran Li (“Li”) crashed a new BMW during a test drive. Kenneth Gonsalves (“Gonsalves”), a salesperson for the BMW dealership, was a passenger in the vehicle. Gonsalves sued, alleging that Li drove recklessly during the test drive, causing the accident. A jury found that Li was negligent, that Gonsalves was not comparatively negligent, and awarded Gonsalves more than $1.2 million in damages. Li appealed arguing the trial court committed numerous evidentiary errors including admitting in evidence the full sets of the RFAs and special interrogatories that asked Li to explain any denials to the RFAs, as well as Li’s responses to both. (Gonsalves, supra, at pp. 1408, 1413.)

The Court of Appeal held denials of RFAs are not admissible evidence in a case where a party’s litigation conduct is not directly in issue. (Gonsalves, supra, at p. 1417.) According to the court, the questions regarding Li’s denials to RFAs were legal contention questions. “Li was asked to explain ‘by memory and on the spot’ and without the ability to consult with his attorney why he took the legal position that he could not admit or deny certain RFAs without further inquiry.” (Id. at pp. 1415-1416.) The court further held that the RFAs were not permissible for impeachment purposes because litigation conduct is not relevant evidence at trial. (Id. at p. 1417.) As such the court vacated the judgment and remanded the matter to the trial court for a new trial. (Id. at p. 1418.)

Related Attorneys

Related Practices

• Appellate