(a) Subject to the right of the responding party to seek a protective order under Section 2033.080, any party who attaches a supporting declaration as described in Section 2033.050 may request a greater number of admissions by another party if the greater number is warranted by the complexity or the quantity of the existing and potential issues in the particular case.
§ 2033.040.Requesting greater number of admissions; nature
Title 4. Civil Discovery Act · Chapter 16. Requests for Admission · Article 1. Requests for Admission · Enacted 2004 · no amendments on record · Last verified July 29, 2026
In one sentenceSection 2033.040 lets a party propound more than 35 non-genuineness requests for admission with a supporting declaration when a greater number is warranted by the complexity or quantity of the case's existing and potential issues, and puts the burden on the propounding party to justify that number if the responding party seeks a protective order.
Full Text of § 2033.040
(b) If the responding party seeks a protective order on the ground that the number of requests for admission is unwarranted, the propounding party shall have the burden of justifying the number of requests for admission.
Plain-English Summary
The 35-request cap in Section 2033.030 is not the final word; this section supplies the one ground that can justify going over it. A party may propound additional requests for admission, backed by the declaration Section 2033.050 requires, when the greater number is warranted by the complexity or the sheer quantity of the existing and potential issues in the particular case. Unlike the interrogatories chapter, which lists several grounds for exceeding its own cap, this section rests on a single standard tied directly to how large or intricate the case is.
Attaching the declaration does not end the inquiry. It only lets the extra requests go out subject to challenge. If the responding party moves under Section 2033.080 for a protective order arguing that the number of requests is unwarranted, this section puts the burden on the propounding party to justify that number, not on the responding party to disprove it. A party planning to request well over 35 admissions should be ready to explain, in case-specific terms, why the issues in this particular lawsuit call for that many, since a declaration that only repeats the statutory language invites a successful challenge.
Frequently Asked Questions
What ground justifies propounding more than 35 non-genuineness requests for admission?
That a greater number is warranted by the complexity or the quantity of the existing and potential issues in the particular case.
Is a declaration enough by itself to guarantee that all the extra requests will be answered?
No. The responding party can still move for a protective order arguing the number is unwarranted, and the propounding party then bears the burden of justifying it.
Which section supplies the declaration required to invoke this ground?
Section 2033.050 sets out the required content of the declaration for additional discovery that must accompany any set exceeding 35 requests.
Can a court still limit the number of requests even if this ground applies?
Yes. The responding party may seek a protective order under Section 2033.080, and the court decides whether the propounding party has met its burden.
Amendment History
(Added by Stats.2004, c. 182 (A.B.3081), § 23, operative July 1, 2005.)
Source & verification. Section text is reproduced verbatim from
the West's Annotated California Codes / Thomson Reuters. Enacted by the California Legislature.
Last verified July 29, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: ccp 2033.040 more than 35 requests for admissionexceeding request for admission limit justificationburden of proof extra requests for admission