Katayama v. Continental Investment Group (2024) G063872 G063872; filed 10/9/24. ![[Files/CaseFiles/G063872.PDF]] [Opinion PDF](https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/G063872.PDF) ## Rule excerpts Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280(c); substantive answers served before the deemed-admissions hearing. Objections were waived, and footnote 14 distinguishes a response containing only objections. > Based on the above, we 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. — Katayama v. Continental Investment Group (2024) G063872, slip op., p. 16.