What happens when parties fail to respond to requests for admissions? Discover Bank v. Kendall Explained

Background and Facts

Discover Bank initiated a collection action against Kevin Kendall in November 2011. Kendall served requests for admissions on Discover Bank, including a critical request that he “admit that Kevin E. Kendall has paid off the account that you allege [he] owe[s] money on.” Discover Bank failed to respond within the 28-day deadline required by Rule 36 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. After attempting to confer in good faith, Kendall moved for summary judgment based on the deemed admissions. Discover Bank eventually responded over two months late and filed its own motion for summary judgment, which the district court granted for $20,602 plus interest.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether matters in requests for admissions are conclusively established when a party fails to respond within the prescribed time limit and never moves to withdraw or amend the admissions. The court also addressed whether a motion for summary judgment can constitute a substantive motion to withdraw admissions.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Court of Appeals reversed, emphasizing that Rule 36(b)(1) states “[t]he matter is admitted” when no timely response is served—not that the court “may” admit the matter. The court distinguished Brunetti v. Mascaro, where a defendant’s opposition brief substantively addressed withdrawal of admissions. Here, Discover Bank merely claimed Kendall’s motion was “moot” after belatedly serving discovery responses. The court stressed that requests for admissions must be taken seriously and that “the penalty for delay or abuse is intentionally harsh.”

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces the automatic nature of Rule 36 admissions. Utah practitioners must calendar the 28-day response deadline and understand that late discovery responses do not cure deemed admissions. If admissions are missed, the only remedy is an immediate motion to withdraw or amend under Rule 36(c), demonstrating that withdrawal will promote the merits and not prejudice the requesting party. Courts will not rescue parties who “flagrantly ignore” procedural rules at the expense of compliant parties.