§36.7 Significant Authorities

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§36.7 SIGNIFICANT AUTHORITIES

The decisions described below are significant authorities addressing CR 36. However, because of the number of important amendments to the rule, carefully evaluate the version of the rule applicable at the time the case was decided. Earlier holdings may not be applicable in light of later amendments to CR 36. Similarly, when evaluating federal authority, be sure that the case addresses a provision that is the same as the Washington rule.

(1)Purpose of CR 36

The purpose of CR 36 is to eliminate from controversy matters that will not be disputed at trial. The rule is not a discovery device designed to discover facts. Lakes v. von der Mehden, 111 Wn. App. 212, 70 P.3d 154 (2003), review denied, 150 Wn.2d 1036 (2004); Coleman v. Altman, 7 Wn.App. 80,497 P.2d 1338 (1972);Reid Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Bellevue Props., 7 Wn.App. 701, 502 P.2d 480 (1972).

CR 36 and the other discovery rules are intended to promote and not to obstruct a court in the pursuit of justice. Therefore, a court will look beyond a technical admission and base its decision on the merits of the case. Coleman, 7 Wn.App. 80.

(2)Scope of CR 36

Requests for admission should pertain to facts that are not disputed and that can be admitted without qualification. The admission should facilitate proof at trial. CR 36 is not designed to take the place of pleadings, nor does it lend itself to requests directed at a mixture of facts, conclusions, and argumentative statements. See Weyerhaeuser Sales Co. v. Holden, 32 Wn.2d 714, 203 P.2d 685 (1949) (addressing Rule of Practice 21, which was based on FED. R. CIV. P. 36).

(3)Use of CR 36

Because of the similarity between FED. R. CIV. P. 36 and the predecessor to CR 36, cases interpreting the federal rule are persuasive in the construction of the Washington rule. Weyerhaeuser, 32 Wn.2d 714 (addressing Rule of Practice 21, which was modeled on FED. R. CIV. P. 36).

It is improper to direct requests to an opposing party that simply seek to compel that party to admit the allegations and averments in an affirmative reply. Id. (improper to use request for admissions in place of pleadings).

Unless the court permits a withdrawal or an amendment of an admission, the matter will be treated as conclusively established. Nichols v. Lackie, 58 Wn.App. 904, 795P.2d722 (1990), review denied, 116 Wn.2d 1024 (1991).

A party may rely upon admissions in seeking or defending a summary judgment when the admissions are based upon a failure to respond. Phillips v. Richmond, 59 Wn.2d 571, 369P.2d299 (1962); Melby v. Hawkins Pontiac Inc., 13 Wn.App. 745...