In 2024, the California Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled that where a party fails to respond timely to requests for admission, thereby waiving objections, the court may deny a motion to deem the requests for admission as admitted when substantive answers are provided prior to the motion hearing, even if the responses contained improper general objections. In the matter of Katayama v. Continental Investment Group, the defendant propounded twenty requests for admission on the plaintiff, who failed to timely respond to the requests and thereby waived objections. The defendant filed a motion to deem the requests for admission as admitted. Ten days before the hearing, the plaintiff served responses admitting or denying the requests for admission along with general objections. The trial court deemed the responses as noncompliant under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220, granted the motion to deem the requests for admission as admitted, and entered judgment for the defendant.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded. Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033.280(c), unless the judge "finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220." That section requires, in subd. (a), that "[e]ach answer in a response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits."  

However, the Court of Appeal stated that, "[If Plaintiff's] objections are ignored, it is clear his substantive answers were far more 'complete and straightforward' than not…. Then, even after incorporating his objections into our assessment, we conclude the grounds asserted—relevance, admissibility, and privileges—did not negate the complete and straightforward nature of the answers because none of the objections claimed an inability to understand and respond to the [requests]." The Court of Appeal further stated that, "[W]e hold that the assertion of waived objections does not necessarily prevent 'substantial compliance with Section 2033.220' as required by section 2033.280(c). Compliance analysis should prioritize the nature of the substantive answers in the proposed response. While waived objections should be a factor in the assessment, their presence should primarily be addressed through the amount of mandatory monetary sanctions imposed. In this matter, we conclude the trial court erred in finding that [Plaintiff's] proposed response did not substantially comply with section 2033.220."

The Court of Appeal further emphasized that the trial court should use a graduated enforcement approach, including compelling proper responses and/or imposing sanctions, rather than barring litigation altogether. The plaintiff's responses, despite the general objections, were complete and straightforward, and the trial court's judgment was inconsistent with the statute's legislative intent by depriving the plaintiff of the opportunity to litigate the matter. Although serving late responses to requests for admission is discouraged, if substantive answers are provided, the courts should not deem the responses noncompliant.