Requests for admissions are designed to help narrow the issues in a case. When used thoughtfully and with the facts in mind, they can save time, streamline discovery, and help move cases toward resolution.
In practice, however, it is common to receive standard or boilerplate requests in many cases, even when the facts do not support them. For example, in a straightforward rear-end accident with no mention of impairment or speeding, the defense may still be asked to admit to reckless driving or alcohol or drug use. While these requests may be intended as part of a broad discovery approach, they do not always contribute to resolving the actual issues in contention or in dispute.
Misuse of requests for admissions can lead to unnecessary work for all parties involved. When requests are not tailored to the specific facts of the case, responding to them requires time and effort that could be better spent addressing the real points in dispute. In some situations, this can also result in additional discovery disputes that do little to move the case forward.
Requests for admissions are governed by Rule 36 of the Tennessee and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These rules encourage parties to use requests for admissions to establish what is genuinely undisputed and to keep the process focused on the issues that matter most to the outcome of the case.
Importantly, requests for admissions are subject to the provisions of Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 26.03. This rule allows the court to issue protective orders to prevent discovery that would cause annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. The rule also provides that the provisions of Rule 37.01(4) apply to the award of expenses incurred in relation to such motions. If requests for admissions are misused, Rule 37 allows courts to address discovery abuse, including the possibility of sanctions or cost-shifting in appropriate circumstances. Courts have discretion to protect parties from overly burdensome or irrelevant discovery practices and to ensure the process remains fair and efficient.
Requests for admissions work best when they reflect the actual case at hand. Taking the time to draft case-specific requests results in greater efficiency, fewer disputes, and a clearer path to resolution. When both sides focus their efforts on the real issues in contention, discovery is more productive and the process moves forward in a way that benefits everyone involved.
Tommy Santel is a co-founding partner of Santel | Garner. Tommy is a former government prosecutor. He is a Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 31 General Civil Mediator and his practice areas include criminal defense and civil litigation.
This blog is made available by Santel | Garner for educational purposes only as well as to provide general information and a general overview of the law, not provide specific legal advice. By using this blog and website, you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and Santel | Garner. This blog and website should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your state.