Each matter of which an admission is requested shall be separately set forth. The matter is admitted unless, within 35 days after service of the request, or within such shorter or longer time as the court may allow or as the parties may agree to in writing pursuant to C.R.C.P. 29, the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a written answer or objection addressed to the matter, signed by the party or by the party’s attorney. If objection is made, the reasons therefor shall be stated. 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 an answer or deny only a part of the matter of which an admission is requested, the party shall specify so much of it as is true and qualify or deny the remainder. An answering party may not give lack of information or knowledge as a reason for failure to admit or deny unless the party states that the party has made reasonable inquiry and that the information known or readily obtainable by the party is insufficient to enable the party to admit or deny. 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; the party may, subject to the provisions of C.R.C.P. 37(c), deny the matter or set forth reasons why the party cannot admit or deny it.
The party who has requested the admissions may move to determine the sufficiency of the answer or objections. 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 Rule, 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. The provisions of C.R.C.P. 37(a)(4) apply to the award of expenses incurred in relation to the motion.
C.R.C.P. 36
Committee Comment
Revised C.R.C.P. 36 now interrelates with the differential case management features of C.R.C.P. 16 and C.R.C.P. 26. Because of mandatory disclosure, substantially less discovery is needed.
A discovery schedule for the case is required by C.R.C.P. 16(b)(1)(IV). Under the requirements of that Rule, the parties must set forth in the Case Management Order the timing and number of requests for admission and the basis for the necessity of such discovery with attention to the presumptive limitation and standards set forth in C.R.C.P. 26(b)(2). There is also the requirement that counsel certify they have advised their clients of the estimated expenses and fees involved in the discovery. Discovery is thus tailored to the particular case. The parties in the first instance and ultimately the Court are responsible for setting reasonable limits and preventing abuse.
Annotation I. General Consideration. Law reviews. For article on Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure concerning depositions, discovery, and pretrial procedure, see 21 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 38 (1948). For article, “Notes on Proposed Amendments to Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure”, see 27 Dicta 165 (1950). For article, “Amendments to the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure”, see 28 Dicta 242 (1951). For article, “Depositions and Discovery, Rules 26 to 37 “, see 28 Dicta 375 (1951). For article, “Depositions and Discovery: Rules 26-37 “, see 23 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 562 (1951). For article, “One Year Review of Civil Procedure and Appeals”, see 39 Dicta 133 (1962). For comment on McGee v. Heim appearing below, see 34 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 577 (1962). For article, “Plaintiff’s Advantageous Use of Discovery, Pre-Trial and Summary Judgment”, see 40 Den. L. Ctr. J. 192 (1963). For article, “A Litigator’s Guide to Summary Judgments”, see 14 Colo. Law. 216 (1985). C.R.C.P. 26 to 37 must be construed together along with the requirement that the plaintiff establish a prima facie case for punitive damages, as a condition precedent to the plaintiff’s right to discovery of defendant’s financial information. Leidholt v. District Court, 619 P.2d 768 (Colo. 1980). District court’s decision to deny a motion to withdraw or amend a response to a request for admission is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Grynberg v. Karlin, 134 P.3d 563 (Colo. App. 2006). Civil discovery rules inapplicable to release hearings. Based on §§ 16-8-115 to 16-8-117 and on the special nonadversary nature of a release inquiry, the participants in release proceedings do not have the broad right of discovery as provided in the rules of civil procedure. People v. District Court, 192 Colo. 225, 557 P.2d 414 (1976). Under C.R.C.P. 81(a), the procedure in release hearings under § 16-8-115 is so inconsistent and in conflict with the rules of civil procedure as to make civil discovery rules inapplicable to release hearings. People v. District Court, 192 Colo. 225, 557 P.2d 414 (1976). Applied in Ricci v. Davis, 627 P.2d 1111 (Colo. 1981). II. Request. When one fails to properly reply to requests for admissions, for the purpose of trial, those statements made in the request will be deemed admitted. McGee v. Heim, 146 Colo. 533, 362 P.2d 193 (1961); Cox v. Pearl Inv. Co., 168 Colo. 67, 450 P.2d 60 (1969); Moses v. Moses, 30 Colo. App. 173, 494 P.2d 133 (1971); Grynberg v. Karlin, 134 P.3d 563 (Colo. App. 2006). The genuineness of all documents not denied stands admitted under the provisions of this rule where a “request for admission of facts and genuineness of documents” is filed. Roemer v. Sinclair Ref. Co., 151 Colo. 401, 380 P.2d 56 (1963). There is no binding effect on the requesting party of a request for admission pursuant to this rule and the response thereto. The purpose of this rule is to bind the party making the admission, not the party requesting it, and the submission of such a request and the response thereto admits nothing as to the requesting party. Aspen Petroleum Prods., Inc. v. Zedan, 113 P.3d 1290 (Colo. App. 2005). An admission can constitute an adequate showing for the purpose of a summary judgment motion under C.R.C.P. 56. Roemer v. Sinclair Ref. Co., 151 Colo. 401, 380 P.2d 56 (1963); Cox v. Pearl Inv. Co., 168 Colo. 67, 450 P.2d 60 (1969); Cortez v. Brokaw, 632 P.2d 635 (Colo. App. 1981); Grynberg v. Karlin, 134 P.3d 563 (Colo. App. 2006). Lack of adherence to formalities in verifying answers which do not result in prejudice should not interfere with the determination of the issues on the merits. Swan v. Zwahlen, 131 Colo. 184, 280 P.2d 439 (1955). Late filings may be permitted. Where there is a request for admission, a late filing of a denial does not create a nonrebuttable presumption of the truth of the admitted fact, and late filings may be permitted where no prejudice is shown. Moses v. Moses, 180 Colo. 398, 505 P.2d 1302 (1973); Cortez v. Brokaw, 632 P.2d 635 (Colo. App. 1981); Sanchez v. Moosburger, 187 P.3d 1185 (Colo. App. 2008). Court should not have granted summary judgment based entirely on plaintiff’s deemed admission. Though plaintiff failed to timely reply to request for admission, plaintiff moved for an extension of time to reply and submitted a denial of the request, an affidavit, and documentary evidence before the court granted summary judgment. Sanchez v. Moosburger, 187 P.3d 1185 (Colo. App. 2008). Officials of an administrative agency cannot be compelled to answer requests for admissions concerning the procedure or manner in which they made their findings and rendered a decision in a given case. P.U.C. v. District Court, 163 Colo. 462, 431 P.2d 773 (1967). The only exception to this rule is where an allegation has been made and there is a clear showing of illegal or unlawful action, misconduct, bias, or bad faith on the part of the administrative officials or a specific violation of an applicable statute. P.U.C. v. District Court, 163 Colo. 462, 431 P.2d 773 (1967).
For scope of discovery, see C.R.C.P. 26(b); for award of expenses of motion to determine the sufficiency of answer or objections, see C.R.C.P. 37(a)(4); for expenses on failure to admit, see C.R.C.P. 37(c).