Mastering Requests for Admission (RFAs) is a cost-effective way to shape the trajectory of civil litigation. Whether you're aiming to simplify trial prep or pin down your opponent's position, strategic RFAs can eliminate factual disputes and clarify your path to victory.

Discovery in civil litigation is often viewed simply as the process of gathering facts, documents, and testimony to build a case. While that’s true, discovery also serves a critical and strategic purpose beyond mere fact-finding: it narrows the issues that will actually need to be tried in court. This is where Requests for Admission (RFAs) play a uniquely powerful role.

Unlike interrogatories or requests for production—which are designed to uncover new information—RFAs ask your opponent to formally admit or deny specific facts or the authenticity of documents. This forces the opposing party to take a clear position on discrete points, reducing ambiguity and clarifying exactly what is in dispute. By establishing certain facts as “admitted,” RFAs remove those matters from contention and significantly streamline litigation.

For example, an RFA might ask a party to admit that they signed a contract, received a notice, or sent a particular communication. If the party admits, that fact is conclusively established for the case—no need for further proof at trial. If they deny, they reveal their position early and expose any contradictions or weaknesses in their defense.

The strategic benefits of RFAs include:

• Forcing early clarity: By requiring admissions early, you can avoid surprises and better prepare your case. Knowing which facts are uncontested allows you to focus on truly disputed issues.

• Supporting dispositive motions: Admissions can form the factual foundation for summary judgment motions, helping to resolve the case or key issues without a full trial.

• Saving time and money: When facts are admitted, there’s no need to call witnesses or introduce evidence to prove them later. This reduces trial complexity and costs.

However, the power of RFAs comes with risks if they’re not drafted thoughtfully. Ambiguous language invites objections and non-responses. Overly broad or compound requests may lead to blanket denials or motions to strike. And serving numerous irrelevant or redundant RFAs can backfire, making you appear overly aggressive or fishing for admissions, which courts may disfavor.

❗ This is why precision and purpose are critical when drafting RFAs. Each request should be clear, focused on a discrete fact or document, and tied directly to an issue in the case. Strategic RFAs don’t just ask questions—they shape the litigation by narrowing the contested facts and reducing uncertainty.

When done correctly, RFAs give you control over the factual landscape, making the path to resolution more predictable and manageable. Mastering this tool is essential for efficient and effective civil litigation.

🎯 Why This Guide Matters

RFAs are often underutilized compared to interrogatories or document requests. But savvy litigators understand their power. Used at the right time, and framed in the right way, RFAs can lock in facts that otherwise require costly proof at trial.

This guide is designed to help you:

• ✅ Understand the function and timing of RFAs

• ✅ Draft effective and admissible RFAs that withstand objections

• ✅ Use admissions to support dispositive motions or trial preparation

• ✅ Avoid common pitfalls that dilute their effectiveness

1. The Purpose and Power of RFAs

Requests for Admission are governed by Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (and corresponding state rules). Unlike other discovery tools, RFAs don’t seek new information—they seek binding admissions.

You can request admission of:

• Facts

• The application of law to facts

• The genuineness of documents

✔️ Effective uses include:

• Authenticating contracts, emails, or public records

• Establishing dates, locations, or sequences of events

• Confirming elements of a claim or defense that aren’t in real dispute

• Isolating falsehoods or contradictions for use at deposition or trial

⚠️ Caution: RFAs should not be used to harass, overload, or test legal theories that remain genuinely in dispute.

2. Legal Framework and Timing

Rulebook Essentials:

• Rule 36(a): Sets out procedures for serving RFAs and timelines for responses.

• Rule 36(b): Admissions are binding unless withdrawn or amended with court permission.

• Rule 26(g): Sanctions may apply for improper certification of responses or evasive denials.

💡 Timing Tip: Serve RFAs after some factual discovery has clarified what your opponent can reasonably admit. They’re especially effective when preparing for:

• Summary judgment motions

• Pretrial stipulations

• Trial

3. How to Draft RFAs That Stick

✍️ Best Practices:

• Be concise and specific: Avoid compound or vague statements.

• Avoid ambiguity: The clearer the request, the harder it is to deny.

• One fact per request: Break down facts into distinct statements.

• Target undisputed issues: Don’t waste RFAs on points likely to be genuinely contested.

✅ Strong RFA Examples:

• “Admit that the Plaintiff signed the lease agreement dated June 1, 2022.”

• “Admit that the Defendant received the email dated August 15, 2023, from John Smith.”

• “Admit that Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the purchase agreement between the parties.”

4. Responding to RFAs Strategically

🎯 Response Options:

• Admit

• Deny

• Deny in part and admit in part

• State inability to admit or deny (with a reasonable explanation)

🛡 Avoid evasive or unsupported denials. Courts frown upon boilerplate responses and may deem matters admitted if responses lack specificity.

📋 Practice Tip: When denying, explain your basis. When stating you “lack information,” confirm you’ve made a reasonable inquiry.

5. Using RFAs to Support Your Case

RFAs are powerful litigation tools when followed up strategically:

• In Motion Practice: Use admissions to support statements of fact in summary judgment.

• At Trial: Admitted RFAs are evidence—no need to re-prove admitted facts.

• To Shift Burden: Highlight an opponent’s refusal to admit the obvious as a credibility issue.

💡 Bonus Tip: If your opponent fails to admit a fact later proven at trial, you may recover the cost of proving that fact (FRCP 37(c)(2)).

6. Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

❌ Pitfall 1: Compound or Confusing Requests

📌 Fix It: Ask one fact at a time.

❌ Pitfall 2: Using RFAs to Harass or Repeat Interrogatories

📌 Fix It: Use RFAs for admissions, not open-ended inquiries.

❌ Pitfall 3: Blanket Denials

📌 Fix It: Challenge evasive denials with a motion to determine the sufficiency of responses (Rule 36(a)(6)).

7. Case Examples: RFAs in Action

🔍 Case 1 – Locked In and Won
In a contract dispute, Plaintiff used RFAs to authenticate every version of the agreement. When the Defendant tried to challenge authenticity at trial, the court barred the argument—because the facts had been admitted in discovery.

🔍 Case 2 – Sanctioned for Denials
A Defendant denied RFAs about receiving a termination notice. At trial, emails and logs showed receipt. The court sanctioned the Defendant and awarded costs under Rule 37(c)(2).

🔍 Case 3 – Strategy with Scope
In a product liability case, RFAs helped limit discovery to one product model and year. Admissions saved months of discovery disputes and narrowed trial prep.

Practical Tips for Drafting RFAs

• 🎯 One fact per request—clarity wins.
• 🛠 Use them to build your summary judgment roadmap.
• 🧠 Time them after key depositions or document review.
• 🤝 Tie each RFA to a broader litigation objective.
• 📋 Keep RFAs within 25 unless local rules allow more.

FAQs

Q1: How many RFAs can I serve?
Under the FRCP, there is no numerical limit—check your local rules.

Q2: What if the opposing party gives vague responses?
You can file a motion under Rule 36(a)(6) asking the court to determine the sufficiency of the answers.

Q3: Can I use RFAs to ask about legal conclusions?
You may ask about the application of law to fact, but pure legal conclusions are improper.

Q4: Are admissions binding at trial?
Yes, unless withdrawn or amended with court permission.

Q5: Can I use RFAs to authenticate documents?
Absolutely—this is one of their most effective uses.

Final Thoughts

Requests for Admission are more than procedural checkboxes—they’re litigation tools that can streamline your case and win it faster. By drafting clear, targeted, and strategic RFAs, you clarify issues, build evidence, and prepare the ground for dispositive motions or trial.

✅ Need help with drafting RFAs or using them to sharpen your litigation strategy?
📣 Partner with Legal Husk for Discovery Done Right

At Legal Husk, we help trial teams and legal departments:
• Draft airtight discovery requests
• Respond strategically to objections
• Manage ESI with precision
• File and defend discovery motions with clarity and confidence

🎯 Don’t let discovery disputes stall your case. Win the battle before it reaches the courtroom—with Legal Husk by your side.
👉 Visit: https://legalhusk.com/
👉 Get to Know More About Us: https://legalhusk.com/about-us
🔗 Learn More About Our Litigation Services: https://legalhusk.com/services/
📞 Schedule a Discovery Consult Today—and start extracting the facts that move your case forward.
📩 Ready to transform discovery into your advantage? Contact Legal Husk today.