Responses to requests for admission in United States District Court are the topic of this blog post. Requests for admission are governed by Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in United States District Court and Rule 7036 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.
The responses to the requests for admission must be served on the propounding party and all other parties to the action within 30 days after service unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court. This time period is extended to 33 days if the requests for admission were served by mail.
The importance of serving timely responses cannot be stressed enough as Rule 36(a)(3) states that, “A matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served, the party to whom the request is directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney. A shorter or longer time for responding may be stipulated to under Rule 29 or be ordered by the court.”
The responses must also comply with Rule 36(a)(4) which states that, “If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest. The answering party may assert lack of knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny.”
Rule 36(a)(5) states that, “The grounds for objecting to a request must be stated. A party must not object solely on the ground that the request presents a genuine issue for trial.”
The responding party should also keep in mind that the Federal courts in particular are notoriously intolerant of generic or “boilerplate” objections that are interposed without any supporting facts. Examples include “vague and ambiguous” where no details are provided as to why the request for admission is vague and ambiguous. The use of boilerplate objections with no supporting facts may result in the imposition of monetary sanctions as well as waiver of the objections.
The responses must be signed under oath and the attorney must sign any response that contains any objections.
Attorneys or parties who would like to view a portion of a sample 9 page responses to requests for admission in United States District Court under Rule 36 containing brief instructions for responding, a generic verification under oath with notary acknowledgment for use in most states, a specific verification for California only, and proof of service by mail sold by the author can see below.
The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 255 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation. If you are in need of assistance with any California or Federal litigation matters, Mr. Burman is available on a freelance basis. Mr. Burman may be contacted by e-mail at DivParalgl@yahoo.com for more information. He accepts payments through PayPal which means that you can pay using most credit or debit cards.
*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 255 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.
Follow the author on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro
You can view sample legal document packages for sale by visiting: http://www.legaldocspro.com/downloads.aspx
Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.
The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.