Effective Use of Requests for Admission
You once heard that requests for admission are a severely
underutilized tool. So you tried using them and filed detailed requests in a
case. Yet you accomplished absolutely nothing because the defendant's
attorney categorically denied virtually every request for admission.
There are two good tactics to consider when faced with this
typical obstruction. The first is to propound an alternative interrogatory
upon the defendant which asks the defendant's lawyer to set forth all facts
and evidence upon which the defendant intends to rely upon at trial to
support the defense lawyer's denial of the request for admission. This
type of interrogatory helps to put defendant's case into a tighter box.
This box tends to be even tighter if you are propounding your discovery at
the beginning of the case. Most lawyers begin to look creatively at their
case just before trial. Forcing the defendant to take early positions gives you a competitive advantage.
The second tactic to use when faced with nonsensical denials is
to do absolutely nothing at all. At trial, read the request for
admissions to the jury. The most typical denial used is defendant's denial that the hospital bills and treatment were causally related to the accident. The message the jury gets loud and clear is that Mr./Ms. Defense Counsel is acting very reasonable now but defendant’s lawyers have fought the injured plaintiff at every single turn on every single issue, regardless of the merits of that issue. This gives the defense attorney an edge in the most critical fight between lawyers in a jury trial: the battle for credibility.
underutilized tool. So you tried using them and filed detailed requests in a
case. Yet you accomplished absolutely nothing because the defendant's
attorney categorically denied virtually every request for admission.
There are two good tactics to consider when faced with this
typical obstruction. The first is to propound an alternative interrogatory
upon the defendant which asks the defendant's lawyer to set forth all facts
and evidence upon which the defendant intends to rely upon at trial to
support the defense lawyer's denial of the request for admission. This
type of interrogatory helps to put defendant's case into a tighter box.
This box tends to be even tighter if you are propounding your discovery at
the beginning of the case. Most lawyers begin to look creatively at their
case just before trial. Forcing the defendant to take early positions gives you a competitive advantage.
The second tactic to use when faced with nonsensical denials is
to do absolutely nothing at all. At trial, read the request for
admissions to the jury. The most typical denial used is defendant's denial that the hospital bills and treatment were causally related to the accident. The message the jury gets loud and clear is that Mr./Ms. Defense Counsel is acting very reasonable now but defendant’s lawyers have fought the injured plaintiff at every single turn on every single issue, regardless of the merits of that issue. This gives the defense attorney an edge in the most critical fight between lawyers in a jury trial: the battle for credibility.
I am a Pro Se litigant currently in U.S. district Court with my former employer in a Title VII action in federal court. In their Answer to my complaint, the defendant either denied every charge in complaint or claimed not to possess sufficient knowledge to formulate an opinion regarding subject matter in the complaint. Now, in discovery, the defendant's attorney has served me with 24 interrogatories and 50 requests for production of documents, while knowing that they possess all of the crucial evidence that I need to prove my case at trial. I will undoubtedly object to the unreasonable number of document requests, and I am leaning toward beginning with requests for admissions along with requests for production of documents. What would be my best course of action using the discovery tools available to me under F.R.Civ.P.?
Object to the all interrogatories and all 50 requests for production on the following grounds:
Object, the request is unduly vague and necessarily includes work-product and privileged information.
Object, the request is not relevant or material to any claims or defense, us burdensome and oppressive and not calculated to lead to evidence admissible to any claim or defense.
Object, the request is not relevant or material to any claims or defense, us burdensome and oppressive and not calculated to lead to evidence admissible to any claim or defense.
Object, the request is improper, vague, not relevant and Defendant is collaterally estopped.
That will force them to file a motion to compel and ask for a hearing where a judge will probably deny the majority of their requests.
Don't let them intimidate you. Fight back. They want to play games, well two can play that game. Challenge them every step of the way and cost them time, and money.
I disagree. I think objecting to requests that you know are proper are a significant Rule 11 problem