Hoshour vs. Montgomery

Importantly, no further response can be ordered to an RFA that has been unqualifiedly denied, even if the facts involved are unquestionably true. “[A] court [cannot] force a litigant to admit any particular fact if he is willing to risk a perjury prosecution or financial sanctions” by denying them. [Holguin v. Sup.Ct. (Hoage) (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 812, 820.]

Here, on October 11, 2025 Plaintiffs served RFAs, Set 1. (Decl. Kizer¶2.) Defendant did not serve responses until December 16, 2025 Page 16 of 36

(Defendant’s Opp). The Separate Statement, filed concurrently with the motion, establishes that for many RFAs Defendant responded “unknown”. Defendant also denied several RFAs. (See Separate Statement, ROA 56) On December 17, 2025, Plaintiff mailed a meet and confer letter as required by CCP § 2033.290(b)(1).

In response to this Motion, Defendant Montgomery merely states that she served responses on December 16, 2025.

Therefore, Motion is GRANTED as to RFAs 20, 22, 32, 40, 42, and 43 wherein Defendant evasively responded “unknown”. To the extent this motion is directed to responses where Defendant equivocally denied or admitted an RFA, the motion is DENIED pursuant to the authority set forth above.