Request for Admissions Denial Danger

A perplexing California Fourth Appellate District case regarding denial of Request for Admissions, Grace v. Mansourian has just been ordered published.  The case involved a defendant who had a good faith belief that the traffic light was “green,” while other “witnesses” and the traffic investigation disagreed.  Verdict for plaintiff, who recovered costs for proving matters denied by defendant’s Request for Admissions denials.

The Appellate court held that the defendant’s firm belief the light was green was not reasonable in light of all the evidence.  In a somewhat convoluted ruling, the Court stated that it was irrelevant as to defendant’s reasonable belief he did not run the light, but rather if the defendant reasonably believed he would prevail on that issue at trial.

Do you believe the court would have decided in this manner if plaintiff would have held to a “reasonable” belief the light was green?

Be careful of broad-stroke denials of Request for Admissions and polish your crystal ball for your “Request for Admissions you can prevail on the specific issues at trial.

Have questions about Request for Admissions Denial Danger?

Feel free to contact us with your questions here, and we’d be happy to clarify any questions you may have!

  • Carl A. Robertson, Sr.

    The defendants denied every request for admissions (104) with boilerplate, evasive and denials answers. I made a motion to compel answer, but the court agreed with the defendants’ objections by stating they have that right in objecting to all (Interrogatories, Request for Documents, and Admissions). I have now used the defendants’ request for admissions denials as part of my evidence against them on summary judgment, because many of their denials were based on documentary evidence already within their, as well as my possession. The defendants’ denial goes to the heart of the case which includes documents which would prove my arguments that my demotion and discharge from employment was based on pretext and/or made-up reasons. What I have read is the courts have recently said that request for admissions [denials] cannot be used as evidence for trial or summary judgment. Are you now saying that request for admissions [denials] can be used as long as the defendant/plaintiff reasonably believed he would prevail on that issue at trial? If the defendants’ belief is wrong, then does that mean the plaintiff should be able to prevail by demonstrating that—the defendants denials are based on deceptions compared to the facts of the pending litigation?

  • Carl A. Robertson, Sr.

    The defendants denied every request for admissions (104) with boilerplate, evasive and denials answers. I made a motion to compel answer, but the court agreed with the defendants’ objections by stating they have that right in objecting to all (Interrogatories, Request for Documents, and Admissions). I have now used the defendants’ request for admissions denials as part of my evidence against them on summary judgment, because many of their denials were based on documentary evidence already within their, as well as my possession. The defendants’ denial goes to the heart of the case which includes documents which would prove my arguments that my demotion and discharge from employment was based on pretext and/or made-up reasons. What I have read is the courts have recently said that request for admissions [denials] cannot be used as evidence for trial or summary judgment. Are you now saying that request for admissions [denials] can be used as long as the defendant/plaintiff reasonably believed he would prevail on that issue at trial? If the defendants’ belief is wrong, then does that mean the plaintiff should be able to prevail by demonstrating that—the defendants denials are based on deceptions compared to the facts of the pending litigation?