What Should Happen When You Blow Responding to Requests for Admissions?

We just covered what should happen when you fail to respond to a motion to dismiss (pray for appellate mercy), now how about requests for admissions?

I know what the rule says, but what if the admissions are those pesky "contention admissions" that basically ask you to admit every single disputed fact in your complaint?

Aren't those annoying?  Why do lawyers even serve them?

Even worse, the plaintiff filed a motion for sj based solely on the failure to respond to the admissions, even though the defendant had answered and denied the core allegations of the complaint?

Magistrate Judge Goodman says not so fast: 
But when a party propounds a request for admissions “with the wild‐eyed hope that the other side will fail to answer and therefore admit essential elements (that the party has already denied in its answer), the rule’s timesaving  function ceases; the rule instead becomes a weapon, dragging out the litigation and wasting valuable resources.” Perez, 297 F.3d at 1268.
This is so true.

Good ruling, Judge.

(My stab at an appropriate song title to accompany the ruling is above.)


  1. Requests for admissions? Hump day? Coincidence or conspiracy?

  2. Rules. What are they good for? Absolutely nothing.

  3. Tough to pin a song on this one but the closest I can come is "You Took Advantage of Me" sung by Rosemary Clooney If you get hit with a msj based on a request for admissions not being timely answered, I think the classy retort is to pour yourself a high ball, rev up the HI FI, put on your Don Draper persona, and sing along with George's aunt.


Post a Comment