Oklahoma requests for admission: the clock does not start until the answer is filed

Requests for admission are the one discovery device that punishes silence automatically, which is why they are so often served with the petition. Oklahoma answers that tactic with a single sentence, and it changes the whole calculation.

Served early, but the clock waits

Section 3236(A) allows service at the front of the case: "The request may, without leave of court, be served upon any party after the filing of a petition."

Then it suspends the consequence:

The thirty-day response period shall not commence until an answer to the petition is filed. However, upon leave of court or otherwise agreed to in writing by the parties subject to Section 3229 of this title, the response to the request may be required prior to the filing of an answer to the petition.

So requests may be served the day the case is filed — and nothing runs. The thirty days begin only when an answer to the petition is filed, which puts the start of the period in the responding party's own hands.

Two ways around it, and both require the defendant's participation or the court's: leave of court, or a written agreement of the parties under Section 3229.

The practical effect is to take requests for admission out of the race-to-default toolkit. A plaintiff that serves thirty requests with the petition, hoping for a deemed admission from a defendant scrambling to answer, gets nothing from the delay — the clock has not started.

For a defendant, the reading is equally clear but easy to get wrong: filing the answer starts a second deadline running. The day the answer goes in, diary thirty days for the admissions.

Thirty requests, and a process for asking for more

The cap is stated plainly:

The number of requests for admissions for each party is limited to thirty. No further requests for admission will be served unless authorized by the court.

Then the section sets out how to seek more, and it is a sequence rather than a motion:

If counsel for a party believes that more than thirty requests for admissions are necessary, counsel shall consult with opposing counsel promptly and attempt to reach a written stipulation as to a reasonable number of additional requests for admissions. Counsel are expected to comply with this requirement in good faith.

Note the standard set for the conversation — "Counsel are expected to comply with this requirement in good faith." The consultation is not a box to tick before filing.

Only if that fails does a motion follow, and the rule prescribes its contents:

In the event a written stipulation cannot be agreed upon, the party seeking to submit such additional requests for admissions shall file a motion with the court (1) showing that counsel have conferred in good faith but sincere attempts to resolve the issue have been unavailing, (2) showing reasons establishing good cause for their use, and (3) setting forth the proposed additional requests.

Three required showings, and the third is the demanding one: the proposed additional requests themselves go in the motion. A court is not asked to approve a number in the abstract; it reads what is actually being asked.

That is a reason to draft the extra requests before opening the conversation with opposing counsel. They will be needed either way — for the stipulation or for the motion.

What can be asked

The scope is the ordinary discovery scope under Section 3226, applied to:

statements or opinions of fact or of the application of law to fact, including the genuineness of any documents described in the request.

Copies of documents are served with the request "unless they have been or are otherwise furnished or made available for inspection and copying," and "Each matter of which an admission is requested shall be separately set forth."

The separate-statement requirement interacts with the cap. A compound request that bundles several propositions is vulnerable on two grounds at once — it is not separately set forth, and it invites an argument about how many of the thirty it consumed.

Answering: deny, or explain why you cannot

Once the period has run, the matter is admitted unless the party serves "a written answer or objection addressed to the matter, signed by the party or by the party's attorney."

The answer has to do real work:

The answer shall specifically deny the matter or set forth in detail the reasons why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter. A denial shall fairly meet the substance of the requested admission, and when good faith requires that a party qualify his or her answer or deny only a part of the matter of which an admission is requested, he or she shall specify so much of it as is true and qualify or deny the remainder.

Lack of information is available only with a statement that "he or she has made reasonable inquiry and that the information known or readily obtainable by the party is insufficient to enable him or her to admit or deny."

And the reflex objection is closed:

A party who considers that a matter of which an admission has been requested presents a genuine issue for trial may not, on that ground alone, object to the request; he or she may, subject to the provisions of subsection D of Section 3237 of this title, deny the matter or set forth reasons why he or she cannot admit or deny it.

The cross-reference is to the failure-to-admit expenses provision, which is where a denial that turns out to be wrong is paid for. "If objection is made, the reasons therefor shall be stated."

Testing the answers

The requesting party "may move to determine the sufficiency of the answers or objections," and the outcomes split the same way they do elsewhere:

Unless the court determines that an objection is justified, it shall order that an answer be served. If the court determines that an answer does not comply with the requirements of this section, it may order either that the matter is admitted or that an amended answer be served. The court may, in lieu of these orders, determine that final disposition of the request be made at a pretrial conference or at a designated time prior to trial.

An objection that fails produces an order to answer. A non-compliant answer can produce an admission. That asymmetry is the reason to answer plainly rather than evasively: an objection risks an order, an evasive answer risks the admission itself.

Expenses on the motion are governed by paragraph 4 of subsection A of Section 3237.

Conclusively established, and confined to this case

Section 3236(B):

Any matter admitted under this section is conclusively established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission. The court may permit withdrawal or amendment of an admission when the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved thereby and the party who obtained the admission fails to satisfy the court that withdrawal or amendment will prejudice him or her in maintaining his or her action or defense on the merits.

Read where the burden sits in the second half. Once the merits point is made out, it is for the party holding the admission to satisfy the court that withdrawal would prejudice it.

And Section 3236(C) keeps the admission where it was made:

Any admission made by a party under this section is for the purpose of the pending action only and is not an admission for any other purpose nor may it be used against him or her in any other proceeding.

A short checklist

If you are serving requests:

1. Count your requests. Thirty is the limit, per party.
2. Do not expect an early service to produce an early admission. The clock waits for the answer.
3. If you need more than thirty, confer first and draft the extra requests — they go in the stipulation or the motion.
4. Keep each matter separate. Compound requests are vulnerable twice over.
5. Move on a non-compliant answer; that is the route that can produce an admission.
6. Serve document copies unless they are already available.

If you are responding:

1. Diary thirty days from the day your answer to the petition is filed, not from service of the requests.
2. Check for leave or a written agreement that would start the clock sooner.
3. State the reasons for any objection.
4. Deny plainly rather than evasively. An evasive answer can be turned into an admission; a clear denial cannot.

Where these rules live

• 12 O.S. § 3236 — Requests for admission
• Responding to an Oklahoma petition
• Oklahoma motion to compel discovery
• Oklahoma motion to dismiss
• Oklahoma summary judgment
• Oklahoma TROs and injunctions

This page explains what the rules say. It isn't legal advice, and whether a particular set of requests exceeds thirty once parts and subparts are counted is a question this page does not answer.