Rule 36.Request for admission

A request for admission asks the other side to admit or deny the truth of a specific fact, an opinion tied to fact, the application of law to fact, or the genuineness of a document. Rule 36 lets any party serve these requests on any other party, with each matter separately stated and numbered; if the request concerns a document, a copy has to be served too, unless it's already been furnished or made available.

Utah requires something the federal rule doesn't: every request for admission has to carry a caution notice, in bold type, at the top right corner of the first page, warning the recipient that failing to respond within 28 days means the court will treat the matters as admitted. Leaving that warning off doesn't void the request, but it can give the non-responding party a basis under Rule 60(b) to argue excusable neglect and ask the court to set aside whatever order or judgment resulted.

A requested matter is deemed admitted unless the responding party serves a written response within 28 days. That response has to restate each request before answering it, and then admit it, deny it, or explain in detail why the party can't truthfully do either. A party can admit part of a matter and deny the rest, but any denial has to address the substance of what's being asked — a party can't claim to lack enough information to admit or deny unless a reasonable inquiry still left the party without enough to go on. And a party can't object to a request just because the underlying fact is disputed and headed for trial; subject to Rule 37(c), the party's option in that situation is to deny it or explain why an admission or denial isn't possible. If a party does object on other grounds, the objection has to state its reasons, or the reason is waived absent good cause, and the party still has to admit or deny whatever part of the request isn't objectionable.

An admitted matter is conclusively established for the case, unless the court permits withdrawal or amendment — something it can do when doing so would help resolve the case on the merits and wouldn't prejudice the party that requested the admission. Even then, an admission only binds the parties in the pending action; it isn't an admission for any other purpose and can't be used in a separate case.

The Advisory Committee Notes trace the caution-language requirement to a 1986 amendment that departed from both the prior rule and the federal rule by requiring the request itself to warn of the consequences of silence. A later note tied to the 1999 overhaul of discovery explains that the new admission procedures applied only to cases filed on or after November 1, 1999.