Be very wary of poorly worded requests for admissions or you'll be like this defendant

In a past blog article I wrote about admissions vs stipulations, and the inherent weaknesses of admissions. Admissions in federal court have another weakness, they bind both parties.

Let's look at FRCP 36(b): Effect of an Admission; Withdrawing or Amending It. A matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended.

Compare the federal rule with California's civil code Any matter admitted in response to a request for admission is conclusively established against the party making the admission in the pending action

The federal rule didn't say it is only binding on the admitting party. It's binding on both parties and it could make errantly worded requests for admission (RFA) deadly for the requesting party. This is an actual RFA from a defendant in a telemarketing case (minus my editing marks):

I'm not the defendant so I can't be sure, but I suspect the defendant didn't mean to establish this fact, but probably meant to have a not in there. Oopsie! And if they don't notice it or can't fix it, they will have self administered a punch to the face.

And this illustrates my point. Don't submit requests for admission you don't want them to admit. So be careful submitting these to the other party;

1. Admit that you did a thing on Monday

2. Admit that you didn't do a thing on Monday

Unless your case is fine with either fact being conclusively established. And if you see the other party make this mistake, what are you going to do? Be happy you can truthfully answer it and establish a fact that benefits you?

Hopefully you see a little more on why poorly worded requests for admission can be a problem!

Would you like a free case review? Do you have a question or a telemarketing, debt collection, or bankruptcy case that would make a great blog article? We might even review your pro-se complaint or motion in a blog post. Email peter@nwdebtresolution.com and/or nathen@nwdebtresolution.com and we may answer it for everyone!

Are telemarketers harassing you in Washington, Oregon, or Montana? My Washington State TCPA plaintiff law practice can help, just give us a call at 206-800-6000 or email peter@nwdebtresolution.com.

The thoughts, opinions and musings of this blog are those of Peter Schneider, a consumer advocate and Washington State plaintiff's TCPA attorney at Northwest Debt Resolution, LLC. They are just that, his thoughts, opinions and musings and should be treated as such. They are not legal advice. If you are looking to file a lawsuit for TCPA violations and unwanted calls please contact me for a consultation.

Return to blog articles