Objections to requests for admission by responding party
Common Objections to Requests for Admission
Objections must be stated specifically and should not be used merely because the matter is disputed. A party generally must admit, deny, qualify the response, or explain—after reasonable inquiry—why it cannot do so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4)–(6)[1]
| Objection | Sample language |
|---|---|
| Compound or conjunctive request | “Responding Party objects that this Request is compound because it improperly combines multiple factual propositions. Responding Party further objects that the Request is ambiguous as to [identify term]. Subject to these objections, Responding Party responds as follows: …” |
| Ambiguous or vague | “Responding Party objects that the terms ‘[term]’ and/or ‘[term]’ are vague and ambiguous and do not permit a reasonably precise admission or denial.” |
| Overbroad or unduly burdensome | “Responding Party objects that this Request is overbroad and unduly burdensome because it is not limited by reasonable subject matter, time, or scope. Responding Party further objects to the extent compliance would impose disproportionate burdens under Rule 26(b)(1).” |
| Irrelevant or outside permissible scope | “Responding Party objects that this Request seeks information unrelated to any party’s claim or defense and outside the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” |
| Lack of foundation or personal knowledge | “Responding Party lacks sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny this Request. After reasonable inquiry, including review of reasonably available information, Responding Party lacks information sufficient to enable an admission or denial.” |
| Premature or incomplete discovery | “Responding Party objects that the Request is premature because relevant discovery remains outstanding, including [identify discovery]. Responding Party reserves the right to supplement this response as permitted by the applicable rules.” |
| Improper legal conclusion | “Responding Party objects that this Request seeks an abstract legal conclusion unrelated to the application of law to the facts of this action.” Requests may address application of law to fact, but pure legal opinions are generally improper under Rule 36. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1)(A)[2] |
| Calls for expert opinion | “Responding Party objects that this Request seeks an expert opinion or technical conclusion before the completion of expert discovery and without the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(2).” |
| Assumes disputed facts | “Responding Party objects that this Request assumes facts not established in the record, including [identify assumption].” |
| Mischaracterizes document or testimony | “Responding Party objects that this Request mischaracterizes [the document/testimony] by omitting or altering material language. Responding Party refers to the complete [document/testimony] for its full context.” |
| Lacks identification of document | “Responding Party objects that the Request fails to identify the document, communication, or transaction with reasonable particularity.” |
| Seeks admission as to authenticity without attached document | “Responding Party objects that the Request seeks an admission concerning the genuineness of a document that has not been provided or otherwise made available for inspection and copying.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(2)[2] |
| Privileged information | “Responding Party objects to the extent the Request seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine, or another applicable privilege or protection. No privileged information is admitted.” |
| Confidential or protected information | “Responding Party objects to the extent the Request seeks confidential, proprietary, private, or otherwise protected information. Responding Party will meet and confer regarding an appropriate protective arrangement.” |
| Duplicative or repetitive | “Responding Party objects that this Request is duplicative of Request Nos. [##] and needlessly increases the burden of responding.” |
| Exceeds applicable numerical limit | “Responding Party objects that this Request exceeds the numerical limitation applicable to requests for admission under the governing rules or court order.” |
| Improperly seeks an admission for another proceeding | “Responding Party objects to the extent this Request seeks an admission for use outside this action. Any response under Rule 36 is for purposes of this action only.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1)[2] |
| Calls for speculation | “Responding Party objects that the Request calls for speculation concerning matters not within Responding Party’s knowledge or control.” |
| Unavailable information | “After reasonable inquiry, Responding Party lacks information reasonably available to it sufficient to admit or deny the Request.” This objection should identify, at least generally, the inquiry made and the information unavailable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4)[1] |
Important Response Rules
A responding party should not rely on objections alone where a partial admission, denial, or qualified response is possible:
“When good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4)[2]
Additional requirements include:
- Each request must be answered separately.
- A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the request.
- A lack-of-information response must state that reasonable inquiry was made.
- Objections must state their grounds.
- Failure to respond within 30 days generally results in admission. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3)[2]
- An admitted matter is conclusively established unless withdrawn or amended by court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b)[2]
For Nevada state court, the corresponding requirements appear in Nev. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4)–(6)[1]. Boilerplate objections, including an objection solely that the matter presents a genuine issue for trial, are insufficient. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(5)[2]