Request For Admissions

[oracle117]

What is the name of your state? california

i am representing myself pro per in a civil superior case in california/personal injury.
today i received a "request for admissions" document from the defendant. previously, i received and returned interrogatories, requests for documents. no deposition, no medical exam. medical records subpoened.

it lists 11 admissions all saying things like admit you suffered no injury, you lost no wages, they are not responsible, etc. all the things claimed in my suit/already stated they want me to admit or deny in this document.

first of all, what is the purpose of this document? to ask me to deny/accept everything i have already stated are the grounds for the case. what would the defense do with this? it sure wouldn't provide information they wouldn't already have/expect? is this a trick thing? or have i just gotton paranoid trying to deal with all of this legal stuff on my own?

second and most important...it asks if my response to each request for admission served an unqualified admission? if not, for each response that is not an unqualified admission...state the number of the request...state all the facts upon which you base your response...name/address of all people who have knowledge of those facts...identify all documents and other tangible things that support your response.

what i do not understand is this...all my answers to the things they list are that i disagree. example...it says: "admit that you did not suffer any wage loss as a result of the incident of..." my answer is "disagree". so do i just write, "disagree" for each one and that is all i have to do? or do i have to spell out why i disagree, etc. i do not understand.

i hope this makes sense and someone can help me because this legal stuff is so confusing and i can't find answers...and no one at the court or otherwise (clerks, etc.) want to be bothered by questions.

thanks!!!!

 

[stephenk]

you received a set of requests for admission and a set of interrogatories, right? Each are to be answered separately.

You may want to look up Code of Civil Procedure 2033 for info on admission requests and responses.

To respond to the admissions, you either admit or deny the request. If you lack sufficient information to admit the matter, you have to state you are unable to admit and you must detail the investigation you have done even though you cant admit the request.

Sign the responses under penalty of perjury and serve them by mail within the alloted time on the other side.

for the interrogatory responses, for each response to an admission request that was not answered "admit", you must state why you were unable to admit the request, what documents you have in support of the non-admission, what facts you have in support of the non-admission, etc.

Sign under penalty of perjury and serve them like the admission responses.


By the way, there are no trick sets of discovery. If you are going to be representing yourself, you should become familiar with the discovery rules of code of civil procedure.

 

[April2002]

You may want to read this article I found on the subject your asking about.
http://www.aftl.org/files/articles/WCsept02.pdf
The article explains the reasons for the use of the form. Hope this helps out.

 

[oracle117]

follow up question

1. thanks for the article from the second responder.

2. to the first person responding or to anyone else.

re: interrogatories versus request for admissions.
about 6 months ago, the defense sent me interrogatories (pages and pages of questions) which i answered all of them. also inspection demands.
now 6 months later, i just got two things 1. the request for admissions and 2. form interrogatories set two.
the part that is confusing to me is on the interrogatories i just got in the same envelope as the request for admiss...there is only one box checked on one of 8 pages. it says "is the response to each request for admission served with these interrogatories an unqualified admission? if not for each response that is not an unqualified admission..." then it says to state all the facts and documents that support your response.

everything they ask me to admit to is things like they had nothing to do with the accident...i suffered no injuries...i had no medical bills as a result, etc. so my answer to all is i disagree 100%. all the documents and facts that i have to support this...medical bills, doctor's records, witness statement, etc. i gave to them 6 months ago in response to the first set of interrogatories and inspection demands. i have given them everything i have to possibly give.
so now i have to say "i refuse to admit these to be true and i disagree with each one" and do i have to give them the same things all over that they have already? or can i just say the things that support my position you already have?
it seems like this is the same thing over again. nothing changed...same issues...same documents, etc.
attorneys sure like to create a lot of papers..

thanks for any help!

 

[stephenk]

since i dont know what your case is about and the issues involved, all I can say is answer the admissions and answer the interrogatory. you dont need to produce documents as attachments to the interrogatory response. Just identify the documents that support your response and indicate that the documents have already been produced to the defendant.

 

[stephenk]

""i refuse to admit these to be true and i disagree with each one"


your response to the admission requests are limited to:

1. admit
2. deny
3. unable to admit due to lack of sufficient information and/or knowledge.

dont add your opinion to the responses.

 

[charlesarcher]

Request for admissions also

I have the same issue as well with both Interrogatories and a request for admissions. In the Interrogatories it asks me to explain in detail and provide documentation for anything other than an unqualified admission from the request for admissions.

I always understood to keep things short and simple so I don't know what to do here. Mine is over a credit card that I think my ex-wife opened under my name but they won't provide the original documentation. They want me to admit I signed it anyway. I don't recall this at all, and I don't recall ever making any charges. This is from several years ago anyway.

Can I be in trouble if I deny signing and then they produce it or some other form of verification? What I know is that my ex-wife had a bankruptcy and wanted to get some credit. She might have done this years ago without telling me.

 

[Antigone*]

I have the same issue as well with both Interrogatories and a request for admissions. In the Interrogatories it asks me to explain in detail and provide documentation for anything other than an unqualified admission from the request for admissions.

I always understood to keep things short and simple so I don't know what to do here. Mine is over a credit card that I think my ex-wife opened under my name but they won't provide the original documentation. They want me to admit I signed it anyway. I don't recall this at all, and I don't recall ever making any charges. This is from several years ago anyway.

Can I be in trouble if I deny signing and then they produce it or some other form of verification? What I know is that my ex-wife had a bankruptcy and wanted to get some credit. She might have done this years ago without telling me.

This is necroposting in its finest form. You have earned the FA Necroposter Of The Day Award

 

[struck78]

Ok. So here is my question(s)

I am answering discovery against a credit card lawsuit. They sent me set one of requests to admit and set one of interrogatories.

On all of the request for admit questions I answered the following:

"Defendant states that after a reasonable inquiry, the information known or readily available by him is insufficient to enable him to admit or deny this request"
============================================
Keep in mind that I did not receive any letter of assignment, nor signed contract and this is not my account.


Now, In their interrogatory the ask me that if I have any "not unqualified admissions" I need to state addresses, names, facts and a whole bunch of nonsense.

My question is this:

Since I did not accepted nor denied any request for admit facts, can my answer to any and all interrogatories be the following?

ANSWER: The information known or readily obtainable by Defendant is insufficient to enable her to answer this Interrogatory. This answer is no way intended as an admittance of Defendant's obligation to this alleged amount.



I truly thank all of your expert answers to my questions and concerns. Thank you in advance!

 

[Antigone*]

Ok. So here is my question(s)

I am answering discovery against a credit card lawsuit. They sent me set one of requests to admit and set one of interrogatories.

On all of the request for admit questions I answered the following:

"Defendant states that after a reasonable inquiry, the information known or readily available by him is insufficient to enable him to admit or deny this request"
============================================
Keep in mind that I did not receive any letter of assignment, nor signed contract and this is not my account.


Now, In their interrogatory the ask me that if I have any "not unqualified admissions" I need to state addresses, names, facts and a whole bunch of nonsense.

My question is this:

Since I did not accepted nor denied any request for admit facts, can my answer to any and all interrogatories be the following?

ANSWER: The information known or readily obtainable by Defendant is insufficient to enable her to answer this Interrogatory. This answer is no way intended as an admittance of Defendant's obligation to this alleged amount.



I truly thank all of your expert answers to my questions and concerns. Thank you in advance!

So, here is my response: Please do not necropost and please don't hijack someone else's thread.

 

[wrongsometimes]

Ok. So here is my question(s)

I am answering discovery against a credit card lawsuit. They sent me set one of requests to admit and set one of interrogatories.

On all of the request for admit questions I answered the following:

"Defendant states that after a reasonable inquiry, the information known or readily available by him is insufficient to enable him to admit or deny this request"
============================================
Keep in mind that I did not receive any letter of assignment, nor signed contract and this is not my account.


Now, In their interrogatory the ask me that if I have any "not unqualified admissions" I need to state addresses, names, facts and a whole bunch of nonsense.

My question is this:

Since I did not accepted nor denied any request for admit facts, can my answer to any and all interrogatories be the following?

ANSWER: The information known or readily obtainable by Defendant is insufficient to enable her to answer this Interrogatory. This answer is no way intended as an admittance of Defendant's obligation to this alleged amount.



I truly thank all of your expert answers to my questions and concerns. Thank you in advance!

A request to admit is just that: a request to admit facts so that these facts need not be argued in court. It is meant to speed the litigation process. So you can simply decline to admit the facts of the statement. They are not like interrogatories where you have continual duty to update if the initial answer is incomplete. It can be a fact & you know it is a fact and you can still deny the request to admit. You must either admit or deny the individual requests. If you wish to deny the request then simply state : denied. DO NOT say you are not admitting or denying the request. After 30 days, if you do not admit or deny the requests, the requests are deemed admitted. With interrogatories, you should answer it to the best of your available knowledge & add add the sentence (or something similar) : I may suppliment this answer if deemed necessary per practice rules as the investigation is continuing. If the opposing party has an issue with your answers they will contact you (they are required to try to solve discovery issues outside court). So if they call you, you should talk to them & say "let me think about this & I'll get back to you next week-I want to check and see if any recent court opinions cover your request".

 

[wrongsometimes]

Also, with interrogatories, if you dont understand a question just answer "respondent does not understand the question". So if you have a question about a term or word; you really should call the opposing party to discuss but send in your response to him. They might get mad but thats too bad.