CHAPTER 10 - 10-5 Responses to Requests for Admission

• Jurisdiction: United States

10-5 Responses to Requests for Admission

A party must respond to a request for admission in writing within thirty days after its service⁵⁴ unless the time is extended due to the manner of service, by the parties' agreement, or by court order.⁵⁵ Each response must be preceded by the request⁵⁶ and may include objections and assertions of privilege as allowed by Texas Rule 193.⁵⁷ Unlike interrogatory answers, the response to a request for admission need not be verified, but rather only signed by the responding party's attorney or a pro se party.⁵⁸ If the response is not properly signed, it "must be stricken unless it is signed promptly after the omission is called to the attention of the [responding] party[.]"⁵⁹

Like other written-discovery responses, responses to requests for admission are not filed,⁶⁰ but must be served on all parties to the action.⁶¹ In addition, responding parties "must retain the original or exact copy of [the responses] during the pendency of the case and any related appellate proceedings begun within six months after judgment is signed, unless otherwise provided by the trial court."⁶²

A responding party has a variety of responses to a request for admission: (1) admit the entire request; (2) deny the entire request; (3) admit the request in part and deny the request in part; (4) state that, despite a reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable an admission or denial; (5) move for a protective order; (6) move for (or request) an extension of time to respond; (7) assert a privilege; (8) object; or (9) do nothing.⁶³ Each response is discussed in the following sections of this chapter.

Admissions can only be used against the admitting party.⁶⁴

10-5:1 Admissions

The responding party can answer a request for admission by admitting it. To do so, it need only respond, "Admitted." No further elaboration is required.⁶⁵ If the party, in "good faith," cannot admit without some explanation or qualification, it can admit with a qualification, an explanation, or a denial of part of the request.⁶⁶ As explained by one federal court:

There will be times, however, when the answer cannot be a succinct yes or no, and a qualification of the response is indeed necessary. Under these circumstances, the answering party is obligated to specify so much of its answer as true and qualify or deny the remainder of the request. "Generally, qualification is permitted if the statement, although containing some truth, . . . standing alone out of context of the whole truth . . . convey[s] unwarranted unfair references." These qualifications are to provide clarity and lucidity to the genuineness of the issue and not to obfuscate, frustrate, or compound the references.⁶⁷

For example, a qualification is appropriate if the request uses a vague or ambiguous term⁶⁸ or "if the request is sweeping, multi-part, involves sharply contested issues, or goes to the heart of a defendant's liability."⁶⁹ The responding party must make certain that its qualified admission "fairly meet[s] the substance of the request"⁷⁰ because, under Texas Rules 215.1(c) and 215.4(a), an evasive or incomplete answer can be treated as a failure to answer and a court, in connection with a motion to determine the sufficiency of an answer, can deem the request admitted.⁷¹

Because the response must "fairly meet the [request's] substance,"⁷² it cannot incorporate by reference other discovery responses, deposition testimony, or the responding party's business records.⁷³ Moreover, a party cannot admit a request "on information and belief."⁷⁴ If such a response is challenged, the court should strike the qualification and (1) generally order the responding party to properly respond to the request by either admitting or denying the request or stating that it cannot admit or deny it after reasonable inquiry, or (2) on the rare occasion, strike the response and deem the request admitted.⁷⁵

10-5:2 Denials

The responding party can answer a request for admission by denying it. To do so, it need only respond, "Denied." No further elaboration is required.⁷⁶

As with admissions, the responding party can explain or qualify its denial or deny the request in part when "good faith requires"⁷⁷ so long as the qualified or partial denial "fairly meet[s] the substance of the request[.]"⁷⁸ Accordingly, "[w]hen the purpose and significance of a request are reasonably clear, courts do not permit denials based on an overly-technical reading of the request."⁷⁹ As with admissions, the responding party cannot deny a request "on information and belief."⁸⁰

The fact that the responding party previously has denied the substance of a request for admission in a pleading or in response to other discovery, such as in a disclosure, an interrogatory answer, or deposition testimony, does not constitute a denial of a request for admission.⁸¹

10-5:3 Admitting or Denying in Part

When good faith requires, the responding party may admit part and deny part of a request for admission.⁸² In fact, under Texas Rule 198.2, the responding party must admit those portions of the request that it knows are true, while denying the remaining matters.⁸³ Nonetheless, when a request "contains interdependent, compound issues, a party may deny the entire statement if it is premised upon a fact which is denied."⁸⁴

10-5:4 Lack of Information

In many instances, the responding party will not know whether the matter it has been asked to admit is true. Texas Rule 198.2(b) deals with this situation, providing, in full:

Unless the responding party states an objection or asserts a privilege, the responding party must specifically admit or deny the request or explain in detail the reasons that the responding party cannot admit or deny the request. A response must fairly meet the substance of the request. The responding party may qualify an answer, or deny a request in part, only when good faith requires. Lack of information or knowledge is not a proper response unless the responding party states that a reasonable inquiry was made but that the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable the responding party to admit or deny. An assertion that the request presents an issue for trial is not a proper response.⁸⁵

Tension exists between the Rule's first and fourth sentences. The first suggests that the answer must describe in detail what efforts have been made to answer the request, whereas the fourth sentence suggests that such detail is unnecessary and that the answer need only track the sentence's language.

No Texas court has recognized the conflict, much less decided how to resolve it. Federal courts, however, have split on the issue in interpreting Federal Rule 36(a) (4)'s similar language.⁸⁶ Although some courts have held that the responding party must detail its inquiry,⁸⁷ most courts have held that a simple statement that the party has made a reasonable inquiry and lacks adequate information to admit or to deny the request is sufficient.⁸⁸

The latter construction not only is the majority one, but it also is the better one. As explained by one federal court:

One common situation is where the respondent lacks adequate knowledge to answer. The third sentence [of Federal Rule 36(a)(4), which is substantially the same as the fourth sentence of Texas Rule 198.2(b),] tells the respondent what he or she must do to answer "in detail." In other words, the sentence sets forth what "in detail" means for the common situation when the answering party lacks information or knowledge. There may be other situations where a respondent cannot admit or deny; in such a situation, the respondent must use the more general directions in the first sentence. If the Court were to interpret [Federal R]ule 36(a)(4) as requiring a person who lacked knowledge to make the statements in the third sentence and describe in detail the inquiry, there would be little need to even have the third sentence—rendering it effectively surplusage, a disfavored result. "In detail" would require at least setting forth what the third sentence requires. The Court is reluctant to give [Federal R]ule 36(a) (4) a construction that gives the third sentence little, if any, effect. Further, the plain language of the first sentence of [Federal R]ule 36(a)(4) does not state that the answer must describe "in detail" the inquiry made; the first sentence states that the respondent must "state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it"—not what the answering party has done. To add the requirement that the answering party must describe in detail what the party has done to reasonably inquire is to write into the rule language that is not there. The Court is reluctant to read into the rule a requirement that the drafters did not write, and which Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States did not approve.
There is also a policy rationale for not reading the "in detail" requirement into the subject that the third sentence covers. [Federal] Rule 36 deals with requests for admissions [sic] and not with interrogatories. To require the answering party to describe in detail the efforts it has made to inquire would be to turn the request for admissions [sic] into an open-ended interrogatory. Moreover, an in-detail description of the inquiry does not advance the discovery ball much; such an answer still does not produce an admission or denial. The detail is not much use for discovery. The detail is more useful for after trial to determine whether [Federal R]ule 37(a)(5) expenses should be awarded for failure to admit, but requiring that information now pushes to an early part of the case a lot of work and squabbles that may never need to be addressed if the case settles or the issue proves to be irrelevant down the road. . . . The third sentence is made under [Federal R]ule 11, which is probably the best end to request-for-admission disputes; to read a requirement that the answering party

...