Utah requests for admission: the warning goes in bold, top right, or the admission may be undone

Utah is the rare jurisdiction that tells you exactly what to print on a request for admission, where to print it, and what happens if you do not. Every word of that requirement is worth following, because the consequence of skipping it falls on the party who sent the request.

The caution language

Rule 36(b)(1):

All requests for admission must include the following caution language at the top right corner of the first page of the document, in bold type: You must respond to these requests for admissions within 28 days or the court will consider you to have admitted the truth of the matter as set forth in these requests.

Three formatting instructions, all mandatory: the top right corner, of the first page, in bold type. And the text itself is prescribed, not paraphrased.

Then the consequence:

Failure to include the caution language may provide the non-requesting party with a basis under Rule 60 (b) for excusable neglect to set aside any resulting order or judgment.

Read what is at stake. The risk is not that the requests are returned or the deadline extended — it is that an order or judgment built on deemed admissions can be set aside for excusable neglect. A party that wins on admissions obtained without the warning may find the win unwound long afterwards.

So this is a drafting check worth building into the template rather than remembering case by case.

Twenty-eight days, and silence admits

Rule 36(c)(1):

The matter is admitted unless, within 28 days after service of the request, the responding party serves upon the requesting party a written response.

Twenty-eight days, and the consequence of missing it is automatic — no motion, no order. The matter is admitted.

Restate each request

Rule 36(c)(2):

The answering party must restate each request before responding to it.

A response that answers by number, without reproducing the request, does not comply. It is a small requirement with a practical purpose: the response is readable on its own, which matters when it is later attached to a summary judgment motion.

What an answer must do

Where the answering party does not object, the rule requires a real engagement with the matter: the party "must admit or deny the matter or state in detail the reasons why the party cannot truthfully admit or deny it."

And partial answers are expressly permitted: "A party may identify the part of a matter which is true and deny the rest." That is the route for a request that mixes something plainly correct with something contested — admit the first part, deny the rest, and say which is which.

Two further limits sit in the same paragraph: "A denial must fairly meet the substance of the request," and "Lack of information is not a reason for failure to admit or deny" unless the party has made reasonable inquiry and the information it can obtain is insufficient.

What may be asked

Rule 36(a) sets the scope broadly:

A party may serve upon any other party a written request to admit the truth of any discoverable matter set forth in the request, including the genuineness of any document. The matter must relate to statements or opinions of fact or of the application of law to fact.

Note the limit in the second sentence: fact, opinion of fact, or the application of law to fact — not pure questions of law.

Two formal requirements follow. "Each matter must be separately stated and numbered," and where a document is involved, "[a] copy of the document must be served with the request unless it has already been furnished or made available for inspection and copying."

State the reason for an objection, or lose it

Utah's objection provision has a waiver rule attached:

If the party objects to a matter, the party must state the reasons for the objection. Any reason not stated is waived unless excused by the court for good cause. The party must admit or deny any part of a matter that is not objectionable. It is not grounds for objection that the truth of a matter is a genuine issue for trial.

Three obligations in four sentences.

Give the reasons. A bare objection is not an objection, and a reason held back is waived unless the court excuses it for good cause. There is no room here for the practice of objecting broadly and explaining later.

Answer the rest. An objection to part of a request does not excuse the remainder. Whatever is not objectionable still has to be admitted or denied.

And "genuine issue for trial" is not a reason. That is the objection people reach for when a request goes to the heart of the case, and the rule closes it twice — once here, and again in the answer provision, which says a party who considers the subject a genuine issue for trial "may not object on that ground alone but may, subject to Rule 37(c), deny the matter or state the reasons for the failure to admit or deny."

The cross-reference to Rule 37(c) is the point. Denying something that turns out to be true is permitted — it just carries a cost if the requesting party has to go and prove it.

Once admitted, it is settled

Rule 36(d) says what an admission is worth, and how it can be undone:

Any matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission. The court may permit withdrawal or amendment if the presentation of the merits of the action will be promoted and withdrawal or amendment will not prejudice the requesting party.

"Conclusively established" — not evidence to be weighed against other evidence, but a fact the case proceeds on. That is why the twenty-eight-day deadline carries the weight it does: the consequence of silence is not a bad answer, it is a settled fact.

The way out is a motion, and it has two conditions that both have to be met: withdrawal must promote the presentation of the merits, and it must not prejudice the requesting party. A party that has stopped preparing to prove something because it was admitted has a prejudice argument.

The last part of the subdivision limits the damage:

Any admission under this rule is for the purpose of the pending action only. It is not an admission for any other purpose, nor may it be used in any other action.

So an admission made to narrow this case does not follow the party into the next one. That is worth knowing before deciding what to fight over — an admission that would be dangerous as a general concession may be safe as a case-specific one.

A short checklist

Serving requests:

1. Put the caution language on the first page, top right, in bold. Use the prescribed wording.
2. Build it into your template — the risk of omission is a Rule 60(b) attack on your judgment.
3. State each matter separately and number it.
4. Attach any document unless it has already been furnished or made available.
5. Diary 28 days and calendar what will be deemed admitted.

Responding:

1. Diary 28 days from service. Silence admits, without any order.
2. Restate each request before your response; the rule requires it.
3. Admit, deny, or explain in detail why you can do neither.
4. Split a mixed request — admit the true part and deny the rest.
5. Check the top right corner. If the caution language is missing and admissions have already been deemed, Rule 60(b) may be available.

Where these rules live

• Utah R. Civ. P. 36 — Requests for admission
• Utah R. Civ. P. 26 — General provisions governing disclosure and discovery
• Utah R. Civ. P. 60 — Relief from judgment or order
• Responding to a Utah complaint
• Utah motion to compel discovery
• Setting aside a Utah default judgment

This page explains what the rules say. It isn't legal advice, and whether a particular omission amounts to excusable neglect is decided case by case.