Missouri requests for admission: the warning has to be on the front page, in bold

Every state makes an unanswered request for admission an admission. Missouri is the only one that makes the requesting party say so, at the top of the document, in capitals, in type no smaller than anything else on the page.

The warning, and what it has to look like

Rule 59.01(a)(1):

The request for admissions shall have included at the beginning of said request the following language in all capital letters, boldface type, and a character size that is as large as the largest character size of any other material in the request: "A FAILURE TO TIMELY RESPOND TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 59.01 SHALL RESULT IN EACH MATTER BEING ADMITTED BY YOU AND NOT SUBJECT TO FURTHER DISPUTE."

Four formatting requirements, all mandatory: at the beginning, all capital letters, boldface type, and a character size as large as the largest used anywhere else in the request.

The last is the one to check. A request drafted with a large display heading has to carry the warning at that size too, not at body-text size.

The text itself is prescribed, so there is nothing to draft — it is copied. But it has to be copied exactly, including the reference to Rule 59.01.

For a party receiving requests, this cuts the other way: the warning is a reliable signal. A Missouri document without it, purporting to be requests for admission, is not compliant on its face, and that is a point worth raising before the deadline rather than after.

Chapter 517 cases are different

Rule 59.01(a)(2) creates two regimes:

Except in cases where the provisions of Chapter 517 apply, a failure to timely respond to requests for admissions in compliance with this Rule 59.01 shall result in each matter being admitted.

Outside Chapter 517 the consequence is automatic. Inside it, the court intervenes:

In cases where the provisions of Chapter 517 apply, upon a party's failure to timely respond to requests for admissions the court may, upon motion and reasonable notice to the parties, take such actions in regard to the failure to respond as are just, and among others the following: (i) Grant a non-responding party additional time to respond; (ii) Order no response be required; (iii) Order the requests for admissions be revised, or reformatted and served again, or served again in a specific manner or place; or (iv) Order any proper request for admission be deemed admitted in the pending action against the non-responding party.

Four listed options, and deeming the matter admitted is the last of them, not the default. The others run the other way: more time, no response required, or an order that the requests be revised or reformatted and served again.

Note also what it takes to get any of them: a motion and reasonable notice. Nothing happens automatically in a Chapter 517 case, in either direction — so a requesting party that wants admissions has to ask, and a non-responding party has room to explain.

Twenty-five, with documents outside the cap

Rule 59.01(a) sets the limit in the same sentence as the scope:

After commencement of an action, a party may serve upon any other party no more than 25 written requests for the admission, without leave of court or stipulation of the parties, for purposes of the pending action only, of the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 56.01(b) set forth in the request that relate to statements or opinions of fact or of the application of law to fact, including the genuineness or foundation of any documents described in the request. However, the limitation on the number of requests for admission specified by this Rule 59.01 shall not apply to requests for admission regarding the genuineness or admissibility of documents.

Twenty-five is among the lowest caps of any state, and leave of court or a stipulation is the way past it.

But the carve-out is generous, and note how it is worded. The cap does not apply to requests about the genuineness or admissibility of documents — admissibility as well as genuineness, which is broader than the comparable exception in most states. Authentication and foundation questions can be asked freely; the twenty-five are for propositions of fact.

An electronic copy is part of service

Rule 59.01(c)(3) puts an obligation on the requesting party that has no counterpart in most states:

The party issuing the requests shall also provide each responding party an electronic copy in a commonly used medium, such as a diskette, CD-ROM, or as an e-mail attachment, in a format that can be read by most commonly used word processing programs, such as Word for Windows or WordPerfect 5.x or higher.

The reason appears two subsections later: the response must quote each request. The electronic copy is what makes that practical.

The version of this rule effective January 1, 2027 keeps the obligation and drops the examples, requiring simply "an electronic copy in a format that can be read by most commonly used word processing programs." The duty is the same; only the list of media disappears.

The certificate of service is longer than usual too. Besides the ordinary contents, it must state the name of each party who is to respond, the number of the set of requests, and "Format of the electronic copy and the medium used to transmit the electronic copy to the responding party."

Thirty days — or sixty, for a defendant

Rule 59.01(d)(1):

Responses shall be served within 30 days after the service of the requests for admissions. A defendant or respondent, however, shall not be required to respond to requests for admissions before the expiration of 60 days after the earlier of the defendant: (A) Entering an appearance, or (B) Being served with process. The court may allow a shorter or longer time.

Sixty days is the longest defendant's floor of any state on this site, and it runs from the earlier of appearance or service — so entering an appearance before being served starts the clock sooner, not later.

There is a matching restriction at the other end. Under Rule 59.01(c)(2), requests may be served on a defendant only "upon the expiration of 30 days after the first event of the defendant entering an appearance or being served with process." A plaintiff may be served with requests after commencement; a defendant has thirty days of quiet first.

The response has to quote the request

Rule 59.01(d)(2) prescribes the form:

The title of the response shall identify the responding party and the number of the set of the requests for admissions. The response shall quote each request, including its original paragraph number, and immediately thereunder specifically: (A) Admit the matter; (B) Deny the matter; (C) Object to the matter and state each reason for the objection; or (D) Set forth in detail the reasons why the responding party cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter.

Four permitted responses, and only four. "Admit in part and deny in part" is handled by the qualification rule that follows: "When good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of the matter of which an admission is requested, the party shall specify so much of it as true and qualify or deny the remainder."

Lack of information is available with the usual statement of reasonable inquiry. And the genuine-issue objection is closed — a party who considers a request presents a genuine issue for trial "may not, on that ground alone, object to the request," but "may deny the matter, subject to the provisions of Rule 61.01(c)."

Privilege has to be explained without being revealed

Rule 59.01(d)(3) imports a privilege-log discipline into requests for admission:

If a failure to admit or deny a request is based on a privilege or the work product doctrine, then without revealing the protected information, the objecting party shall state information that will permit others to assess the applicability of the privilege or work product doctrine.

Most states leave this to the general discovery rules. Missouri says it here, which means a bare assertion of privilege in response to a request for admission is not enough. The response has to give the other side and the court enough to test the claim.

Nothing is filed, but everything is kept

Rule 59.01(e):

The request and response thereto shall not be filed with the court except upon court order or contemporaneously with a motion placing the request in issue. However, both when the request and the response are served the party serving them shall file with the court a certificate of service. Each party filing a certificate shall maintain a copy of the document that is the subject of the certificate until the case is finally disposed.

Three rules: do not file the requests or responses, do file a certificate of service for each, and keep a copy of whatever the certificate covers until final disposition.

The retention duty is easy to overlook and it belongs in a file-closing checklist. The court has no copy, so the parties' own files are the record of what was asked and answered.

A short checklist

If you are serving requests:

1. Put the prescribed warning at the top, in capitals, bold, at the largest character size in the document.
2. Count to twenty-five — and put document genuineness and admissibility in a separate, uncapped set.
3. Send an electronic copy and describe its format and medium in the certificate of service.
4. Wait thirty days after appearance or service before serving a defendant.
5. File the certificate of service, not the requests.
6. Keep your copy until the case is finally disposed.

If you are responding:

1. Check for the warning. Its absence is a defect on the face of the document.
2. Use the sixty-day floor if you are a defendant and it is later than thirty days from the requests.
3. Quote each request with its original paragraph number and answer immediately underneath.
4. If you withhold on privilege, describe the basis without revealing the protected material.

Where these rules live

• Mo. R. Civ. P. 59.01 — Request for and effect of admissions
• Responding to a Missouri petition
• Missouri discovery deadlines
• Missouri motion to compel discovery
• Missouri summary judgment
• Missouri TROs and injunctions

This page explains what the rules say. It isn't legal advice, and which cases the provisions of Chapter 517 apply to is a question this page does not answer.