Motion to Deem Facts Admitted in Montana

What Is a Motion to Deem Facts Admitted?

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Deem Facts Admitted

"The purpose of discovery is to promote the ascertainment of truth and the ultimate disposition of the lawsuit in accordance therewith. Discovery fulfills this purpose by assuring the mutual knowledge of all relevant facts gathered by both parties which are essential to proper litigation." (See USAA Cas. Inc. Co. v Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (2019) No. OP 19-0139, 396 Mont. 547, 449 P.3d 793; Henderson v. Mont. Third Judicial Dist., OP 22-0069, at *3 (Mont. Feb. 15, 2022); Massaro v. Dunham (1979) 184 Mont. 400, 405, 603 P.2d 249, 252; Hickman v. Taylor (1947) 329 U.S. 495, 507, 67 S.Ct. 385, 392, 91 L.Ed. 451.)

“Discovery rules are to be liberally construed to make all relevant facts available to parties in advance of trial and to reduce the possibilities of surprise and unfair advantage." (See id; Cox v. Magers (2018) 390 Mont. 224, 229.)

“The methods by which discovery may be obtained, under the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure, are set out in Rule 26(a).” (See Jaap v. District Court (1981) 191 Mont. 319, 322.)

“Parties may obtain discovery of any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense.” (See Schuster v. Yellowstone Cnty. (2014) 347 P.3d 264; M.R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).)

“It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (See Prindel v. Ravalli County (2006) 331 Mont. 338, 360.)

“Compliance with discovery rules and orders is essential to the efficient and fundamentally fair administration of justice on the merits.” (See Mont. State Univ. Bozeman v. Mont. First Judicial Dist. Court (2018) 392 Mont. 458, 468.)

“Requests for admissions are governed by Rule 36, M.R.Civ.P. They will be deemed admitted unless denied, objected to, or are not subject to admission or denial. As set forth in the rule, grounds for objection are privilege, irrelevancy, or impropriety.” (See Estate of Oscar W. Craddock (1975) 166 Mont. 68, 73.)

Rules for Requests for Admissions

Rule 36 of the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure governs requests for admissions.

“A party may serve on any other party a written request to admit, for purposes of the pending action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to:

facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either; and
the genuineness of any described documents.”

(See M.R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1).)

“A matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served, the party to whom the request is directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney, but, unless the court shortens the time, a defendant shall not be required to serve answers or objections before the expiration of 45 days after service of the summons and complaint upon that defendant. A shorter or longer time for responding to requests for admission may be stipulated to under Rule 29 or be ordered by the court.” (See M.R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3).)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion to Deem Facts Admitted

“District courts have discretion in ruling on motions to withdraw or amend admissions, but such discretion is not unfettered.” (See Bates v. Anderson (2014) 316 P.3d 857, 863; Perez v. Miami–Dade Co. (2002) 297 F.3d 1255, 1265.)

“The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court acted arbitrarily without employment of conscientious judgment or exceeded the bounds of reason resulting in substantial injustice.” (See Tripp v. Jeld-Wen, Inc. (2005) 327 Mont. 146, 149; Jarvenpaa v. Glacier Electric Co-op (1998) 292 Mont. 118, 121.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion to Deem Facts Admitted

It is well settled that “once a matter is admitted, it is conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended.” (See Rule 36(b); Bates v. Anderson (2014) 316 P.3d 857, 861.)

It is also well settled that “the court may permit withdrawal or amendment if it would promote the presentation of the merits of the action and if the court is not persuaded that it would prejudice the requesting party in maintaining or defending the action on the merits.” (See id.)