Printable Format60-236. Requests for admission. (a) Availability, scope and procedure. (1) Availability and scope. A party may serve on the plaintiff after commencement of the action and on any other party with or after service of process on that party a written request to admit, for purposes of the pending action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of K.S.A. 60-226, and amendments thereto, relating to:
(A) Facts, the application of law to fact or opinions about either; and
(B) the genuineness of any described documents.
(2) Form; copy of a document. Each matter must be separately stated. A request to admit the genuineness of a document must be accompanied by a copy of the document unless it is, or has been, otherwise furnished or made available for inspection and copying.
(3) Time to respond; effect of not responding. A matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served, the party to whom the request is directed serve on the requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney, except that a defendant may serve answers or objections within 45 days after being served with process. A shorter or longer time may be stipulated to under K.S.A. 60-229, and amendments thereto, or be ordered by the court.
(4) Answer. If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter, and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest. The answering party may assert lack of knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny.
(5) Objections. The grounds for objecting to a request must be stated. A party must not object solely on the ground that the request presents a genuine issue for trial.
(6) Motion regarding the sufficiency of an answer or objection. The requesting party may move to determine the sufficiency of an answer or objection. Unless the court finds an objection justified, it must order that an answer be served. On finding that an answer does not comply with this section, the court may order either that the matter is admitted or that an amended answer be served. The court may defer its final decision until a pretrial conference or a specified time before trial. The provisions of subsection (a)(5) of K.S.A. 60-237, and amendments thereto, apply to an award of expenses.
(b) Effective of an admission; withdrawing or amending it. A matter admitted under this section is conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended. Subject to subsection (e) of K.S.A. 60-216, and amendments thereto, 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. An admission under this section is not an admission for any other purposes and cannot be used against the party in any other proceeding.
History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-236; amended by Supreme Court order dated July 20, 1972; L. 1997, ch. 173, § 19; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 105; July 1.
Source or prior law:
G.S. 1868, ch. 80, § 367; L. 1909, ch. 182, § 364; R.S. 1923, 60-2849.
Cross References to Related Sections:
Pretrial procedure, see 60-216.
Depositions and discovery pending action, see 60-226.
Perpetuation of testimony, see 60-227.
Interrogatories to parties, see 60-233.
Discovery and production of documents, etc., see 60-234.
Physical and mental examination, see 60-235.
Expenses on refusal to admit, see 60-237(c).
Summary judgment, use of admissions on motions for, see 60-256(c).
Admission of facts and genuineness of documents in limited actions, see 61-3101.
Expenses on refusal to admit truth of facts or genuineness of documents under code of civil procedure for limited actions, see 61-3102.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Request for Admissions—The Neglected Tool of Discovery," Louis E. Striegel, 5 W.L.J. 47 (1965).
"Reducing Post-Conviction Litigation," Richard H. Seaton, 36 J.B.A.K. 99, 102 (1967).
"Interrogatories Restrained," Roger D. Stanton, 37 J.B.A.K. 7, 9 (1968).
"Discovery Techniques in Workmen's Compensation: Largely Undiscovered?" Robert Fowks, 42 J.B.A.K. 83, 84, 87 (1973).
Discussion of consumer protection in Tenth Judicial District, William P. Coates, Jr., 44 J.B.A.K. 67, 104 (1975).
Federal counterpart fully discussed in "Post-1970 Amendment Developments Concerning Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—Rules 34 and 36," Max Logan, 46 J.B.A.K. 9 (1977).
"Contested Estate Matters After Court Unification," Calvin J. Karlin, 48 J.B.A.K. 97, 101 (1979).
"Survey of Kansas Law: Torts," William Edward Westerbeke, 33 K.L.R. 1, 39 (1984).
"More Goo for Our Tort Stew: Implementing the Kansas Collateral Source Rule," James Concannon and Ron Smith, 58 J.K.B.A. No. 2, 19, 23, 28 (1989).
"Trial Techniques in Persuasion in a Medical Malpractice Case," Bradley J. Prochaska, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XIX, No. 2, 8, 9 (1995).
"Cutting the Hedge: Reforming Comparative Fault in Medical Malpractice," John W. Johnson and Edward L. Robinson, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. 30, No. 3, 12 (2007).
"Requests For Admission: Another Tool in the Box? (Part 2)," James R. Howell, 34 J.K.A.J., No. 3, 4 (2011).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
Prior law cases, see G.S. 1949, 60-2849.
1. Response hereunder although not verified authorized summary judgment. Crowther, Administrator v. Baird, 195 Kan. 134, 137, 138, 402 P.2d 753.
2. Trial court sustained motion for summary judgment as matter of law upon pleading and admissions secured hereunder. Ray v. State Highway Commission, 196 Kan. 13, 14, 20, 410 P.2d 278.
3. Admission of facts sufficient to permit court to consider motion to dismiss equivalent to motion for summary judgment. Schulenberg v. City of Reading, 196 Kan. 43, 54, 410 P.2d 324.
4. Cited in affirming summary judgment in negligence case. Shehi v. Southwest Rentals, Inc., 199 Kan. 265, 266, 429 P.2d 838.
5. Plaintiff's answers to requests for admissions were not "straddling statements" or "evasive answers" so as to be considered admissions. Koch, Administratrix v. Prudential Ins. Co., 202 Kan. 229, 231, 447 P.2d 825.
6. Cited; when admissions and undisputed testimony leave no question of fact to be decided, issues may be determined as a matter of law. Campbell Sixty-six Express, Inc. v. Adventure Line Mfg. Co., Inc., 209 Kan. 357, 358, 496 P.2d 1351.
7. Requested admissions deemed admitted where defendants failed to respond. Mater v. Boese, 213 Kan. 711, 714, 719, 518 P.2d 482.
8. Paragraph (a) applied in determining liability on insurance policy; construction of exclusionary clause. Alliance Life Ins. Co. v. Ulysses Volunteer Fireman's Relief Assn., 215 Kan. 937, 944, 529 P.2d 171.
9. No basis to request admissions where parties had no "pending action" as defined and required by statute. Boyce v. Knudson, 219 Kan. 357, 360, 364, 548 P.2d 712.
10. Procedure provided hereunder not followed; statements held not to be admissions. Miller v. Sirloin Stockade, 224 Kan. 32, 34, 578 P.2d 247.
11. Refusal to grant summary judgment for failure to answer request for admissions within 30 days not error; extension. Yunghans v. O'Toole, 224 Kan. 553, 554, 555, 581 P.2d 393.
12. Denial of requests for admissions, done in good faith, not grounds for award of attorney fees. Divine v. Groshong, 235 Kan. 127, 142, 679 P.2d 700 (1984).
13. Cited in court's interpretation of the parties' responsibilities regarding personal injury protection (PIP) benefits provided in K.S.A. 40-3110. Miner v. Farm Bur. Mut. Ins. Co., Inc., 17 Kan. App. 2d 598, 603, 841 P.2d 1093 (1992).
14. Whether court's error in concluding that parole is a "pending proceeding" was harmless examined. State v. Gamble, 20 Kan. App. 2d 684, 686, 891 P.2d 472 (1995).
15. Trial court refusal to deem unanswered improper request for admission as admitted not an abuse of discretion. Via Christi Regional Med. Center v. Ayalla, 25 Kan. App. 2d 443, 444, 962 P.2d 1143 (1998).
16. Untimely reply to request for admission does not require admission to be deemed admitted. Underhill v. Thompson, 37 Kan. App. 2d 870, 879, 158 P.3d 987 (2007).