CHAPTER 10 - 10-8 Testing the Sufficiency of Answers, Objections, and Privilege Assertions to Requests for Admission

• Jurisdiction: United States

10-8 Testing the Sufficiency of Answers, Objections, and Privilege Assertions to Requests for Admission

Under Texas Rule 215.4, a requesting party "may move to determine the sufficiency of the answer or objection" to a request for admission.²⁵⁴ It can challenge a qualified admission or denial, an admission or denial that does not "fairly meet the substance of the request,"²⁵⁵ a statement of inability to admit or deny, an objection, or a privilege assertion.²⁵⁶ This does not mean, however, that the requesting party can litigate the accuracy of a request's unqualified denial.

Neither Texas Rule 198 nor Texas Rule 215.4 authorizes a trial court to determine the accuracy of denials before trial.²⁵⁷ Accordingly, a trial court cannot order that a request be admitted because the responding party's denial is unsupported by evidence or even because it was made in bad faith.²⁵⁸ An incorrect or even a bad-faith denial does not constitute an insufficient response for purposes of Texas Rule 215.4(a).²⁵⁹ Rather, the requesting party's sole recourse is to prove the denial's incorrectness at trial and then move for expenses under Texas Rule 215.4(b).²⁶⁰

The requesting party has the burden of challenging the sufficiency of an answer, an objection, or a privilege assertion to a request for admission in the first instance.²⁶¹ If no challenge to the answer, objection, or privilege assertion is made or if no ruling on a motion to test its sufficiency is obtained from the trial court, the requesting party waives any complaint about the answer, objection, or privilege assertion.²⁶²

When an answer, objection, or privilege assertion is challenged, the responding party has the burden to (1) establish the answer's sufficiency, including whether it made reasonable inquiry and whether the information known or easily obtainable was insufficient to enable an admission or denial, or (2) the objection's or privilege assertion's propriety.²⁶³ Unless the trial court finds that the objection or privilege assertion was justified, it must order the responding party to answer the request for admission.²⁶⁴ In contrast, on finding that an answer was insufficient because it was evasive, incomplete, or otherwise did not comply with Texas Rule 198's requirements, the trial court can either deem the request admitted or order that an answer be served.²⁶⁵ The first time a response to a request for admission is found to be insufficient, a court generally should order the responding party to serve a supplemental answer to the request, rather than deeming it admitted.²⁶⁶ Nevertheless, a trial court may deem the request admitted if it finds the responding party was acting in bad faith or where the evidence clearly indicates that the request should have been admitted.²⁶⁷ Moreover, it clearly is appropriate to deem a request for admission admitted if the responding party fails to properly respond after being ordered to do so.²⁶⁸

The losing party in connection with a motion to test the sufficiency of an answer, objection, or privilege assertion to a request for admission can be required to pay the other party's expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees under Texas Rule 215.1(d).²⁶⁹

--------

Notes:

^[254] Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.4(a); accord, e.g., In re Commitment of Williams, 539 S.W.3d 429, 443 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.); Pickaree-Champagne v. Metro. Transit Auth., No. 01-16-00138-CV, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 5451, at *10 n.1, 2017 WL 2590290 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 14, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.); Guerrero-McDonald v. Nassour, 516 S.W.3d 198, 213 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2017, no pet.); Bell v. Nichols, No. 10-13-00151-CV, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 4523, at *8-9, 2014 WL 1681985 (Tex. App.—Waco Apr. 24, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.); Thomas v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 293 S.W.3d 316, 320 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2009, no pet.); In re RLS Legal Sols. L.L.C., 156 S.W.3d 160, 165 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2005, orig. proceeding), mand. conditionally granted on other grounds, 221 S.W.3d 629 (Tex. 2007) (per curiam); In re Hodge, No. 12-02-00314-CV, 2002 Tex. App. LEXIS 8776, at *8, 2002 WL 31769635 (Tex. App.—Tyler Dec. 11, 2002, orig. proceeding) (not designated for publication).

^[255] Tex. R. Civ. P. 198.2(b).

^[256] The requesting party's motion technically is not a motion to compel and should be styled "Motion to Test Sufficiency of Responses [and/or] Objections to Requests for Admission."

^[257] In re Hodge, No. 12-02-0031402000314-CV, 2002 Tex. App. LEXIS 8776, at *11, 2002 WL 31769635 (Tex. App.—Tyler Dec. 11, 2002, orig. proceeding) (not designated for publication) ("[Plaintiffs] cite no case law, and we are not aware of any, supporting their contention that, as here, a party may file a motion to deem admissions requesting that a trial court determine whether such a denial has merit. Therefore, we conclude that such action by the trial court is not permitted by the rules of procedure or interpretation of the case law."); cf. District of Columbia ex rel. Z-Modular, LLC v. MCN Build, Inc., No. 18-cv-2947 (RJL/GMh), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124719, at *10-11 (D.D.C. July 15, 2020) ("Plaintiff's attempt to litigate the accuracy of...