5.8Request for Admission
The purpose of MCR 2.312 is “to limit the areas of controversy and to conserve resources that otherwise would be spent amassing proofs.” Radtke v Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, 453 Mich 413, 425 (1996).
“Within the time for completion of discovery, a party may serve on another party a written request for the admission[.]” MCR 2.312(A). “The request must clearly identify in the caption and before each request that it is a Request for Admission,” and “[e]ach matter of which an admission is requested must be stated separately.” Id.
A matter will be deemed admitted if the nonmoving party does not serve a response within 28 days after the request was served. MCR 2.312(B)(1). If the nonmoving party is a defendant, he or she has 42 days after being served with the summons and complaint to serve a response to an admissions request. Id. The court may alter response times at its discretion. Id.
Admissions under MCR 2.312(A) are written requests seeking the truth of a matter within the scope of discovery relating to statements or opinions of fact or the application of law to fact. MCR 2.312(A). However, requesting that the defendant admit to the basis of the plaintiff’s claim is not a proper subject for admission where the defendant reasonably believes he or she may prevail on the claim. Richardson v Ryder Truck Rental, Inc, 213 Mich App 447, 457-458 (1995).
A party served with a request for admission has several options in responding to the request. Radtke v Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, 453 Mich 413, 419 (1996). The party may (1) make an express admission, (2) do nothing (in which case it will be deemed an admission), (3) deny the matter, in whole or in part, (4) explain why a response is impossible, or (5) object to the request. Id. “Gratuitous statements that are beyond the scope of a request do not constitute conclusively binding judicial admissions under MCR 2.312, and are not precluded by [MCR 2.312(D)(2)] from being used in other proceedings.” Radtke, 453 Mich at 426.
If the party does not respond or object within the time frame outlined in MCR 2.312(B)(1), the matter is admitted. MCR 2.312(B)(1). An admission is conclusive unless the court, in its discretion, permits amendment or withdrawal. MCR 2.312(D)(1).
A party may be allowed to file late answers to an opposing party’s request for admission. Janczyk v Davis, 125 Mich App 683, 692-693 (1983). The trial judge should balance three factors when deciding whether to permit a late answer: (1) whether it will aid in the presentation of the action; (2) whether the other party would be prejudiced by a late answer; and (3) the reason for the delay. Id. The Court cautioned:
“When a trial judge is asked to decide whether or not to allow a party to file late answers to the request for admissions, he is in effect called upon to balance between the interests of justice and diligence in litigation. . . . ‘The severity of the sanctions should be tempered by a consideration of the equities involved.’ In other words, a rigid rule is sometimes unjustified; but too lenient a rule will undermine the policy of the court rule itself.” Janczyk, 125 Mich App at 691-692 (internal citations omitted).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the defendants to amend their answer where the plaintiff was given ample opportunity to conduct discovery after the trial court’s decision (in fact, discovery was subsequently reopened at the plaintiff’s request—to depose another witness), and the defendants’ late discovery of documents critical to the lawsuit (i.e. the reason they sought to amend their answer) was inadvertent. Bailey v Schaaf, 293 Mich App 611, 622-623 (2011), aff’d in part, vacated in part on other grounds 494 Mich 595 (2013).1 The Court stated that “[t]he situation here—in which two parties later learned that timely, initial responses had inadvertently failed to account for critical documents—is precisely the kind of possibility the reservation of trial court discretion in MCR 2.312(D)(1) addresses.” Bailey, 293 Mich App at 623.
Admissions under MCR 2.312 are judicial admissions, not evidentiary admissions. Radtke v Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, 453 Mich 413, 420 (1996). A judicial admission is conclusive, whereas an evidentiary admission is not. Id. at 420-421. Evidentiary admissions are subject to contradiction or explanation. Id. at 421. Admissions under MCR 2.312 (judicial admissions) must be narrowly construed. Hilgendorf v St John Hosp and Med Ctr Corp, 245 Mich App 670, 690 (2001). “Only that portion of the response that directly meets and admits the request is a judicial admission under MCR 2.312, so that it is conclusively binding for the pending action and may not be used as evidence in other proceedings.” Radtke, 453 Mich at 425. Judicial admissions may be considered for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary disposition. Employers Mut Cas Co v Petroleum Equip, Inc, 190 Mich App 57, 61-62 (1991). See also MCR 2.116(G)(5), which allows summary disposition motions made pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(1)-(7) or MCR 2.116(C)(10) to be supported by admissions.
The procedures in MCR 2.312 are not self-executing; the party seeking to rely upon any conclusive admission must bring the issue to the trial court’s attention before the close of proofs. Radtke, 453 Mich at 421 n 7. However, neither the court rules nor the case law require a party to file a motion before the court can deem the request admitted.
F.Sanction for Failure to Admit
“If a party denies the genuineness of a document, or the truth of a matter as requested under MCR 2.312, and if the party requesting the admission later proves the genuineness of the document or the truth of the matter,” the court must grant a motion by the requesting party for expenses incurred in making the proof, unless it finds that (1) the request was found objectionable under MCR 2.312, (2) the admission sought was not substantially important, (3) the failing party had reasonable grounds to believe he or she may have prevailed on the matter, or (4) some other good reason existed for failing to admit. MCR 2.313(C)(2).
“The mere fact that the matter was proved at trial does not, of itself, establish that the denial in response to the request for an admission was unreasonable.” King v Mich State Police Dep’t, 303 Mich App 162, 182 (2013) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees to the plaintiffs as a discovery sanction because the plaintiffs did not prove the truth of the matter that was the subject of the requests for admissions).
The court’s decision to allow a party to amend a response, withdraw a response, or file a late response is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Janczyk v Davis, 125 Mich App 683, 691 (1983).
1 For more information on the precedential value of an opinion with negative subsequent history, see our note.