Requests for admission are the most dangerous discovery an employer receives. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.410, any matter admitted is “conclusively established against the party making the admission in the pending action.” Miss the response deadline and the court can deem the requests admitted. Deny something the plaintiff later proves, and the company may pay the cost of that proof. Each answer needs the same care as trial testimony.
How are requests for admission different from other discovery?
They end disputes instead of gathering information. A plaintiff in a wrongful termination case might ask the company to admit that a manager made a particular comment, that the plaintiff complained before being fired, or that a specific document is genuine. Once admitted, the point is no longer contested.
The binding effect is narrow in one helpful way. Section 2033.410(b) says an admission “is binding only on that party and is made for the purpose of the pending action only,” and “shall not be used in any manner against that party in any other proceeding.” An admission in one employee’s case can’t be offered in another employee’s lawsuit.
What happens if the company answers late?
It can lose the case on paper. Section 2033.280 says a party that “fails to serve a timely response” waives “any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product.” The requesting party can then move to have “the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted.”
There is a lifeline. The statute says the court “shall make this order, unless it finds” that the late party served, “before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” That’s why an employer that misses the deadline should serve complete responses immediately, not wait for the hearing.
Even then, the late party doesn’t escape cost. The same section says “It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction” on whoever caused the motion. Deemed admissions in a discrimination case, such as an admission that the plaintiff’s age was a reason for the termination, can be close to fatal.
How must each answer be written?
Precisely. Section 2033.220(b) requires each answer to “Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true,” “Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue,” and identify the part the company lacks enough information to answer.
Partial admissions are often the right move. A request asking the company to admit the plaintiff “was terminated because of poor performance and was never warned” combines two facts. The company may admit the first part, deny the second, and explain the qualification clearly.
“We don’t know” has a cost. Under subdivision (c), a party claiming lack of knowledge “shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.” That inquiry should actually happen, with the managers and records involved, before the response is verified.
Can denying a request cost the company money later?
Yes. This is the rule employers most often overlook. Section 2033.420(a) allows the requesting party, after proving a fact the other side refused to admit, to seek “the reasonable expenses incurred in making that proof, including reasonable attorney’s fees.”
The court must make that award unless an exception applies. The most useful one for employers, under subdivision (b)(3), is that the party denying the request “had reasonable ground to believe that that party would prevail on the matter.” So a denial should rest on real evidence. A reflexive denial of a fact the company’s own emails confirm can turn into a fee award after trial, separate from any statutory fee claim the plaintiff already has.
What if the company admits something by mistake?
It can ask to withdraw or amend, but the standard is strict. Section 2033.300 requires “leave of court,” and the court may grant it “only if it determines that the admission was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect,” and that the other side “will not be substantially prejudiced.” The court can also make the company pay for extra discovery the change causes. Getting the answer right the first time is far cheaper.
RFA rules and the employer’s exposure
| Situation | Consequence | Rule |
|---|---|---|
| Matter admitted | Conclusively established in this case | CCP 2033.410(a) |
| Response served late | Objections waived, and a motion to deem admitted | CCP 2033.280(a), (b) |
| Late but compliant response served before hearing | Deemed-admitted order avoided, but the sanction is still mandatory | CCP 2033.280(c) |
| Denial of a fact later proven | Cost of proof, including attorney fees, unless an exception applies | CCP 2033.420 |
| Mistaken admission | Withdrawal only with leave of court | CCP 2033.300 |
Answering requests for admission
- Preserve the documents and messages the requests ask about, including the personnel file, termination paperwork, and emails among the decision-makers.
- Calendar the response deadline the day the requests arrive, and tell the EPLI carrier if the policy requires it.
- Identify the managers and HR staff with knowledge of each request, and make sure none of them contacts the plaintiff about the case.
- Pull the records needed to admit, deny, or qualify each request, and document the inquiry behind any lack-of-knowledge answer.
- Have counsel draft the objections and review every denial against the evidence before the responses are verified.
The firm’s page for employment defense attorneys in California explains how it handles discovery in these cases. A related post covers the employment form interrogatories.
Requests for admission questions from employers
Can we just deny everything and sort it out at trial?
That’s the approach section 2033.420 is designed to punish. A denial needs a reasonable basis. Denying the plaintiff’s hire date, pay rate, or a document the company produced invites a cost-of-proof award and damages credibility with the judge.
Who signs the responses?
Under section 2033.240, a corporation’s “officers or agents shall sign the response under oath,” and “The attorney for the responding party shall sign any response that contains an objection.” The verifier should understand each answer and the inquiry behind it, because the plaintiff may depose that person about how the responses were prepared.
Can we object to requests that ask us to admit legal conclusions?
Sometimes. Section 2033.010 allows requests on “matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact.” A request asking the company to admit it broke the law in general terms is often objectionable as written, but a request about the underlying facts usually is not. Objections should be specific to the request, not boilerplate.
Do admissions affect summary judgment?
Yes. Facts admitted in discovery are established for the case, so admissions can support or defeat a summary judgment motion. A careful set of responses can preserve factual disputes the company needs, while careless ones can hand the plaintiff the undisputed facts.
If your company has been served with requests for admission
If your company has received requests for admission in an employment lawsuit, the deadline and the basis for each denial matter more than in any other discovery. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents employers defending employment lawsuits and claims through its business litigation practice, including discovery in discrimination and wrongful termination cases. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
The statutes are Code of Civil Procedure sections 2033.220, 2033.280, 2033.300, 2033.410, and 2033.420.
This post is general information about California and federal employment law as of November 7, 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Employment statutes, regulations, and court decisions change often, and the outcome of any claim depends on its facts. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.