Page 23 - John Hundley 2010

Sharp Thinking

No. 39 Perspectives on Developments in the Law from The Sharp Law Firm, P.C. November 2010

Court Ups The Ante On Requests To Admit

By John T. Hundley, 618-242-0246, Jhundley@lotsharp.com

A party need not show that the opponent intended to obstruct the litigation in order to tag that
opponent with fees and costs under Illinois’ rules on requests for
admissions, a panel of the Illinois Appellate Court held earlier this month.

Ruling in McGrath v. Botsford, __ Ill.App.3d __, 2010 WL 4542895
(2d Dist. Nov. 5, 2010), the court said the party’s duty to make good-
faith admissions of fact even extends to facts which will have the
effect of “conceding away” one’s entire case.

If followed by other panels, the opinion has the ability to make
requests to admit a much more serious tool in establishing facts and
disposing of non-issues in Illinois courts.

In addition to rejecting the plaintiff’s contention that he should have
been excused for filing denials to matters simply because admissions
would have been fatal to his case, the McGrath case establishes or
clarifies several other points regarding requests for admissions:

A respondent to requests to admit who fails to object to a request within the specified 28
days may not later defend a denial by arguing the request was objectionable. By failing to timely
object, the respondent “forfeit[s] any objection that could have been raised. . . and may not
[later] be heard to justify his denials on the basis that a term was not defined or that he did not
know what a particular phrase referred to.”

A respondent has a good-faith obligation to make a reasonable effort to secure answers not
only from facts within its own knowledge, but also from persons and documents within its
reasonable control.

McGrath continues the rule that requests to admit must encompass matters of fact or
genuineness of documents, not matters of law, but suggests that requests for admission of ultimate
facts are permissible.

McGrath arose out of failed negotiations to form a business venture between the plaintiff and the
defendant. Although those negotiations had broken down, the plaintiff contended that they had
progressed to the stage of existence of a contract which defendant had thereafter breached. Denying
a contract, defendant propounded a series of requests concerning various matters during the

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
Sharp Thinking is an occasional newsletter of The Sharp Law Firm, P.C. addressing developments in the law which may be of interest. Nothing contained in Sharp
Thinking shall be construed to create an attorney-client relation where none previously has existed, nor with respect to any particular matter. The perspectives herein
constitute educational material on general legal topics and are not legal advice applicable to any particular situation. To establish an attorney-client relation or to obtain legal
advice on your particular situation, contact a Sharp lawyer at the phone number or one of the addresses provided on page 2 of this newsletter.