In Wimberly v. Derby Cycle Corp. (1997) 56 Cal. App. 4th 618, the defendant contested the issues upon which the plaintiff had sought a concession by way of requests for admissions. However, the defendant, through a misunderstanding of the law regarding expert witnesses, was unable to present any evidence to counter the plaintiff's proof at trial. (Wimberly, supra, 56 Cal. App. 4th at pp. 635-637.) Wimberly focused not on whether the plaintiff "proved" the truth of a matter denied, but on another element required to obtain an award under section 2033, to wit, whether the denials were reasonable. The plaintiff in Wimberly did have to prove the issue at trial. His task was simply made easier by the defendant's failure to present any contrary evidence. Thus, in Wimberly, the purpose of section 2033, to expedite trial, was not served and sanctions were properly ordered under section 2033, subdivision (o). In short, in Wimberly v. Derby Cycle Corp., a plaintiff asked a defendant to admit that the plaintiff's past and future medical expenses were reasonable and necessary. The defendant's initial response was an unequivocal denial. Six days later, it amended the response to admit that the past medical care was necessary. But it objected that the request was vague and ambiguous with regard to future medical care. The defendant went on: "'To the extent defendant can respond, defendant denies that the extent of future medical care, . . . is reasonable and necessary.'" (Id. at pp. 635-636.) The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff was not entitled to costs associated with the medical care issue because he made no motion to compel a further response after the defendant objected. (Id. at p. 636.)