A Primer on Responding to Requests For Admissions

In the case of Loughery v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., No. 2:19-CV-00383-WSH (W.D. Pa. Oct. 13, 2020 Hardy, J.), the court addressed a Defendant’s Motion to Strike Objections and have its Requests for Admissions addressed to the Plaintiff deemed admitted. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. 

In his Opinion, Judge W. Scott Hardy of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania provided the current status of the law pertaining to Requests for Admissions and responses thereto under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. 

In his Opinion, the court provided the excellent advice that the “substance of the requests themselves should contain statement of fact that are simple and concise so that they can be denied or admitted with minimal need for explanation or qualifications, and be answered yes, no, the answerer does not know, or a very simple and direct explanation given as to why an answer cannot be supplied such as when a privilege is invoked.” See Op. at p. 2. [citations omitted]. 

The court also noted that “[a] denial is a perfectly reasonable response when an issue in dispute is requested to be admitted.” See Op. at p. 2. [citations omitted]. 

The court additionally noted that “an answer may be qualified if the request posits a statement that contains some truth but conveys unwarranted and unfair inferences when standing alone and out of context of the whole truth". See Op. at p. 3. [citations omitted]. 

The court additionally stated that, “while the responding party may qualify a response when a request contains a statement that is only partially true, the responding party may not make ‘disingenuous, hair-splitting distinctions whose unarticulated goal is to unfairly burden an opposing party.’” See Op. at p. 3. [citations omitted]. 

The court additionally noted that, once a responding party answers or objects, the requesting party may seek a judicial determination as to the appropriateness of the responses produced by the answering party.

Judge Hardy noted that, in evaluating the answers and objections to a Request for Admission, the court should consider (1) whether the denial fairly meets the substance of the request; (2) whether good faith requires that the denial be qualified; and (3) whether any ‘qualification’ which has been supplied is a good faith qualification.” See Op. at p. 3 [citations omitted].

As noted, the court in this matter granted the Motion and denied the Motion in part.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The companion Order can be viewed HERE.

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Oct. 29, 2020).

Propriety of Requests for Admissions Reviewed

In the case of Schryver v. Twp of Smithfield, No. 2933-CV-2018 (C.P. Monroe Co. May 21, 2020 Higgins, J.), the court addressed a Defendant’s objections to Requests for Admissions served by a Plaintiff in a negligence action in which the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant caused damages to the Plaintiffs by allowing storm water to flow onto the Plaintiffs’ property. 

The Defendant initially objected to the Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions as being too many in number given that the Plaintiff had served 200 such requests. The court rejected this argument as there is no legal authority to support this argument.

However, the court did strike some duplicative Requests for Admissions. 

The court also accepted the defense argument that some of the other Requests for Admissions were objectionable in that they called for legal conclusions in violation of Pennsylvania law, including the case of Brindley v. Woodland Village Restaurant, Inc., 652 A.2d 865, 871 (Pa. Super. 1995). 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (July 7, 2020).

Judge Minora of Lackawanna County Addresses Proper Scope of Requests for Admissions

In the case of Hand v. DiMauro, No. 2015-CV-4470 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Dec. 12, 2019 Minora, J.), the court addressed the propriety of Requests for Admissions served by a Defendant upon a Plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident case.

At issue before the court in this case were Requests for Admissions served by the defense upon the Plaintiff which essentially sought admissions from the Plaintiff that she had multiple physical ailments that predated the subject accident. 

The Plaintiff objected to these requests, asserting that they improperly sought conclusions of law which were beyond the permissible scope of Requests for Admissions under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 

In his Opinion, Judge Minora reviewed the law surrounding Requests for Admissions which are permitted under Pa. R.C.P. 4014. 

Judge Minora noted that, in the context of discovery, the relevancy of information sought is more widely considered by the courts when compared to the admissibility of evidence at trial. 

The court ruled that the Defendants’ request for discovery concerning the Plaintiff’s prior medical condition is “plainly relevant.”

Judge Minora went on to find that the subject Requests for Admissions were also within Rule 4014’s directive that a Request for Admissions seek the truth of any matters within the scope of discovery allowed by Rules 4003.1 through 4003.5. As such, the court overruled the Plaintiff’s objections to the Requests for Admissions at issue. 

However, rather than accepting the Defendant’s demand that the court consider the Plaintiffs’ invalid objections to be admissions to the Requests submitted. Rather, as a remedy, the court directed the Plaintiff to answer the Requests for Admissions within a certain period of time. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Summary Judgment in a Limited Tort Case Upheld on Appeal

In non-precedential decision in the case of Francisco v. Ludwig, No. 689 MDA 2019 (Pa. Super. March 25, 2020 Lazarus, J., Stabile, J., and Dubow, J.) (Mem. Op. by Lazarus, J.) (non-precedential), the court affirmed the entry of summary judgment by the trial court in favor of a Defendant who was involved in a nine (9) vehicle chain reaction collision. 

The summary judgment motion is based, in part, on the fact that the Plaintiff had failed to timely respond to the moving Defendant’s New Matter and Request for Admissions such that all averments and requests contained therein were deemed admitted. The Plaintiff did eventually file a Reply to the New Matter and Responses to the Request for Admissions. 

After finding that the Plaintiffs’ Reply and Responses were untimely, the court deemed the pertinent factual issues to be admitted and, as a result, granted the summary judgment motion and dismissed the Plaintiff’s case. On appeal, this decision was affirmed by the Superior Court. 

The court noted that the Plaintiff’s procedural missteps in the case, included the waiver of certain issues on this appeal, could not be saved by an application of Pa. R.C.P. 126 which calls for the liberal construction of the Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Walter A. McClatchy, Jr., of the Philadelphia law firm of Walter A. McClatchy, Jr. & Associates, for bringing this case to my attention.