Demyer

Introduction

The law governing the consequences for failing to respond to requests for admission may be the most unforgiving in civil procedure. 1 There is no relief under section 473. The defaulting party is limited to the remedies available *395 in the statute specifically governing requests for admission, section 2033, 2 and within section 2033 there is no general provision for relief. The closest analog to section 473 in section 2033 is subdivision (m), which allows withdrawal or amendment of an admission upon a showing of mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect. Subdivision (m), however, has been held inapplicable to missing the deadline for responding to admissions requests. 3 A party who has failed to file responses must look to subdivision (k) for relief, and subdivision (k) operates in a completely nondiscretionary manner. The propounding party need give no warning (at least according to one well-respected authority 4 )—it simply files a motion to deem the matters covered by the requests admitted. The nonresponding party then has until the “hearing on the motion” to serve responses to the admissions request. 5 If the party manages to serve its responses…

I concur in the result in this virtually sui generis case, but I dissent from the decision to publish the opinion. If the issue has ever presented itself before in the dozen years this division has been in existence, I am unaware of it.

A petition for a rehearing was denied July 28, 1995, and respondents’ petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied September 21, 1995.

The law governing the consequences for failing to respond to requests for admission may be the most unforgiving in civil procedure. [1] There is no relief under section 473. The defaulting party is limited to the remedies available in the statute specifically governing requests for admission, section 2033, [2] and within section 2033 there is no general provision for relief. The closest analog to section 473 in section 2033 is subdivision (m), which allows withdrawal or amendment of an admission upon a showing of mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect. Subdivision (m), however, has been held inapplicable to missing the deadline for responding to admissions requests. [3] A party who has failed to file responses must look to subdivision (k) for relief, and subdivision (k) operates in a completely nondiscretionary manner. The propounding party need give no warning (at least according to one well-respected authority [4] ) — it simply files a motion to deem the matters covered by the requests admitted. The nonresponding party then has until the "hearing on the motion" to serve responses to the admissions request. [5] If the party manages to serve its responses…