To Admit Or Not To Admit? A Pennsylvania Court Answers The Question.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently addressed the impact of failing to timely respond to requests for admissions.  In Krepps v. Synder, the plaintiff served requests for admissions on the defendant, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4014(b).  The defendant eventually responded to these requests over a year later.

At trial, the plaintiff attempted to introduce the requests for admissions as conclusive evidence to the jury (arguing under Rule 4014(b) requests are conclusively admitted if a party fails to respond within 30 days; and as the defendant failed to respond within the required time, the requests were admitted).  Although the trial court agreed the requests were admitted (as the defendant failed to timely respond), the trial court held that the requests could not be admitted as evidence at trial.

On appeal, the Superior Court upheld the trial court’s decision.  In reaching its determination, the Superior Court cited Rule 4014(b)’s explicit language, which allowed a court to extend the time a party had to respond to requests for admissions.  Further, the Superior Court also reasoned that the plaintiff had waited too long to try to admit the requests at trial.  Specifically, the court referenced the fact that the plaintiff had waited until the last day of trial to introduce the requests despite the fact there had been 2 days of testimony regarding admissions at trial.  Moreover, the court determined the plaintiff had suffered no prejudice (when the court accepted the defendant’s late responses) as the defendant’s responses, although untimely, were produced to the plaintiff over a year and a half before trial.  Finally, in the Superior Court’s view, the trial court’s decision to accept the late responses was consistent with the purpose of Rule 4014, which was to streamline the litigation process and authenticate uncontroverted evidence.  The rule was not meant to punish a delinquent party, when there was no showing of prejudice, as this would not comport with the interests of fairness and justice.

Thus, this case seems to undercut the potential usefulness of requests for admissions.  However, this case also illustrates the importance of carefully complying with the Rules of Civil Procedure because one can never fully predict how a court may interpret a seemingly clear-cut rule.

Thanks to Colleen Hayes for her contribution to this post.