Opinion ID: 1195492
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: The State's application for reimbursement of deposition expenses.

Text: The State served on the Contractor, pursuant to Rule 36(a), H.R.C.P., a request to admit that the Contractor's employees Kimberly Berg and Glenn Stevens met with Richard Tillson in June or July, 1967, and discussed weather and climate conditions on Mauna Kea with Mr. Tillson, and to admit specific matters of fact relating to the subjects discussed in the alleged meeting. The answer of the Contractor to each of the requests was denied, without qualification. Subsequently, the State took the deposition of Kimberly Berg, who testified that he had met with Tillson within the period mentioned but that he did not recall whether any of the matters specified in the State's request to admit had been discussed. The State applied, pursuant to Rule 37(c), for an order requiring the Contractor to pay the expenses of Kimberly Berg's deposition, and appeals from the denial of that application. As Rule 37(c) read at the time the request to admit was served and responded to, reimbursement of expenses was provided in cases where the party served with the request responded with a sworn denial. As amended effective July 1, 1972, Rule 37(c) provides for reimbursement if the party fails to admit. The response of the Contractor meets both tests, and the difference in the language of the two versions of the rule is not material. Under both versions, reimbursement of expenses is conditioned on proof of the matter not admitted, and may be denied where the court finds that the admission sought was of no substantial importance. The trial court found, with respect to the meeting between Berg and Tillson: The Court finds it highly improbable that Tillson did not advise Berg about winter weather conditions at that meeting. However, the State did not call Tillson to testify with respect to the meeting and the record contains no evidence of what was discussed other than Berg's deposition. The State failed to prove any of the matters covered by the request to admit, other than that a meeting between Berg and Tillson, not including Glenn Stevens, had taken place. The State contends that the Contractor was obliged, by Rule 36(a), to qualify its denial and to specify that part of what it was requested to admit was true, being the meeting of Berg and Tillson. Although denial by the trial court of the State's application for reimbursement was founded on the State's failure of proof, without recognition that there had been partial proof of the matters covered by the request to admit, so far as there was proof it related to a matter of no substantial importance. Reimbursement to the State of its expenses of the deposition was properly denied by the trial court. The judgment in favor of the State is affirmed. The judgment in favor of the Contractor is reversed. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.