Michigan requests for admission: a defendant gets 42 days, not 28

Michigan's response period is twenty-eight days, the same as the federal rule. But there is a second figure in the same subrule that applies to the party most likely to be caught by the first one, and it is worth finding before the clock is calendared.

Twenty-eight days — unless you are a defendant who was just served

MCR 2.312(B)(1):

Each matter as to which a request is made is deemed admitted unless, within 28 days after service of the request, or within a shorter or longer time as the court may allow, the party to whom the request is directed serves on the party requesting the admission a written answer or objection addressed to the matter. Unless the court orders a shorter time a defendant may serve an answer or objection within 42 days after being served with the summons and complaint.

Two clocks, and the second one governs when it is longer. A defendant served with requests along with the summons and complaint — or shortly after — has 42 days from service of the summons and complaint, not 28 from the requests.

That matters because requests served at the outset of a case are exactly the ones a defendant is least equipped to answer on time. The rule builds in the extra fortnight, and it does so by measuring from a different event.

Two cautions. The extra period runs from service of the summons and complaint, so it shrinks as the case ages — a defendant served with requests two months into the case gets 28 days from the requests, because 42 days from service of process has already passed. And the court can order a shorter time.

The consequence of missing whichever period applies is the usual one, and it is automatic: the matter is deemed admitted without any order.

The caption has to say what it is

MCR 2.312(A) ends with a formatting requirement other states do not have:

The request must clearly identify in the caption and before each request that it is a Request for Admission. Each matter of which an admission is requested must be stated separately.

Twice: in the caption, and before each request. Michigan has seen requests for admission buried inside a combined discovery document where a busy recipient treated them as interrogatories and missed the deemed-admitted consequence. The labeling requirement is the answer to that.

For a party serving a combined set of discovery, the practical instruction is to separate the requests for admission or to mark them unmistakably in both places.

Requests are available "within the time for completion of discovery," and the scope is the ordinary MCR 2.302(B) scope: statements or opinions of fact or the application of law to fact, "including the genuineness of documents described in the request," with copies served unless already furnished or made available.

Filed, not withheld

MCR 2.312(F) runs against the trend of the last thirty years:

Requests and responses under this rule must be filed with the court either before service or within a reasonable time thereafter.

Most states now keep discovery off the docket, and several forbid filing it. Michigan requires it here — "either before service or within a reasonable time thereafter."

So the admissions in a Michigan case are on the file. That is convenient when a later motion turns on them, and it is a reason to draft requests and answers knowing they will be read by the court without anyone attaching them to anything.

Withdrawal is for good cause, on just terms

MCR 2.312(D)(1) makes an admission "conclusively established," then states a withdrawal standard that is shorter and more open than the federal one:

For good cause the court may allow a party to amend or withdraw an admission. The court may condition amendment or withdrawal of the admission on terms that are just.

Two departures. There is no two-part test asking whether the merits would be promoted and whether the requesting party would be prejudiced — Michigan asks for good cause. And the court may attach terms, which is the practical middle ground: withdrawal allowed, with the cost of the wasted preparation shifted.

A party opposing withdrawal in Michigan should therefore argue in two registers — that good cause is absent, and, failing that, what terms would be just.

The confinement to the case is the same as elsewhere: an admission "is for the purpose of the pending action only and is not an admission for another purpose, nor may it be used against the party in another proceeding."

Public records have their own route

MCR 2.312(E) is a mechanism with no counterpart in most states' rules, and it does not involve a request at all. A party intending to use as evidence:

(a) a record that a public official is required by federal, state, or municipal authority to receive for filing or recording or is given custody of by law, or (b) a memorial of a public official, may prepare a copy, synopsis, or abstract of the record, insofar as it is to be used, and serve it on the adverse party sufficiently in advance of trial to allow the adverse party a reasonable opportunity to determine its accuracy.

Then the effect:

The copy, synopsis, or abstract is then admissible in evidence as admitted facts in the action, if otherwise admissible, except insofar as its inaccuracy is pointed out by the adverse party in an affidavit filed and served within a reasonable time before trial.

Three things worth noting.

A synopsis or abstract will do, not only a complete copy — "insofar as it is to be used."

The default is admission. Serve it in time and it comes in as admitted facts unless the other side acts.

The other side has to act by affidavit. Not by objection, not by letter — an affidavit pointing out the inaccuracy, filed and served a reasonable time before trial.

For a party proving up recorded documents, permits, or filings, this is often faster than a request for admission. For a party receiving one, it is a deadline that arrives without a motion attached to it.

Answering, objecting, and the motion that follows

The answering rules follow the familiar pattern. A denial "must fairly meet the substance of the request," a partial answer must "specify the parts that are admitted and denied," and lack of information is available only where the party states "that he or she has made reasonable inquiry and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient."

The genuine-issue objection is closed here too: a party who considers that a request "presents a genuine issue for trial may not, on that ground alone, object to the request," but may, subject to MCR 2.313(C), deny it or explain why it cannot admit or deny.

MCR 2.312(C) requires a conferral before moving on an answer:

The motion must state that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the party not making the disclosure in an effort to secure the disclosure without court action.

If an objection is not justified the court orders an answer; if an answer does not comply the court "may order either that the matter is admitted, or that an amended answer be served"; and it may instead defer final disposition to a pretrial conference or a designated time before trial. Expenses on the motion are governed by MCR 2.313(A)(5).

A short checklist

If you are serving requests:

1. Label them in the caption and before each request. The rule requires both.
2. File them, before service or within a reasonable time after.
3. Serve document copies unless they are already available.
4. State your conferral efforts in any motion on an answer or objection.
5. Consider the public-records route for filings and recorded documents; it may be quicker.
6. State each matter separately.

If you are responding:

1. Check whether the 42-day period applies before calendaring 28 days.
2. Look for requests for admission inside combined discovery, and treat the caption as the signal.
3. Do not object on "genuine issue for trial" alone.
4. If a public-record abstract arrives, diary an affidavit. Silence makes it admitted fact.

Where these rules live

• MCR 2.312 — Request for admission
• MCR 2.302 — General rules governing discovery
• MCR 2.313 — Failure to provide or to permit discovery; sanctions
• Responding to a Michigan complaint
• Michigan discovery deadlines
• Michigan interrogatories
• Michigan motion to compel discovery

This page explains what the rules say. It isn't legal advice, and what amounts to good cause for withdrawing an admission is developed in case law this site doesn't cover.