less..
In this case, a plaintiff served requests for admissions on the defendants. The plaintiff consented to a request for an extension of time to respond. On the afternoon of the agreed response date, the defendants requested an additional 6 days to respond. 6 days later, the defendants requested another extension. The plaintiff rejected those requests and moved for summary judgment based on the responses that were deemed admitted.

Almost 6 weeks later, the defendants moved to withdraw their admissions. The plaintiff opposed that motion, arguing in part that it would be prejudiced if the admissions were withdrawn because of the proximity to trial (it was about a month away). The trial court denied the defendants' motion.

On appeal, the Court held that the delay in the withdraw and the looming trial date showed that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when denying the defendants' motion. It then held that the trial court properly granted summary judgment to the plaintiff.

Admissions can be a powerful litigation tool. Attorneys who do not respond to a request for admissions without an agreement for an extension of time do so at their own peril. Attorneys who then delay in seeking to withdraw facts deemed admitted because of a failure to timely respond are simply asking for trouble.

Brad A. Catlin
Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC
Learn more about Brad and contact us
Download a copy of this article here