Opinion ID: 1136438
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: request for admissions under nrcp 36

Text: Kate next complains that the district judge erred in deeming admitted the respondents' request for admissions. First, the answers were signed not by Kate but by her counsel. This alone would not be sufficient to sustain the district judge's ruling. Rule 36 of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure does not indicate that a sworn response to a request for admissions must be signed by the party himself, and it is considered sufficient if such sworn statement is made by his attorney upon information and belief. See United States v. Taylor, 100 F. Supp. 1016 (W.D.La. 1951); Van Horne v. Hines, 31 F. Supp. 346 (D.D.C. 1940); Benton v. McCarthy, 23 F.R.D. 235 (S.D.N.Y. 1959); Hartley & Parker, Inc. v. Florida Beverage Corp., 348 F.2d 161 (5th Cir.1965). The district judge found that the answers to respondents' request for admissions failed to comply with NRCP 36, [10] in that the answers were not truthful and were not set forth with the specificity required by the rule. We agree. A reading of the record of the trial demonstrates that Kate was in possession of sufficient facts to answer the request for admissions without qualification and with particularity. Instead, she answered with the elusive phrase: Plaintiffs do not know and therefore deny the request   . 2(A) Barron & Holtzoff, Fed. Practice & Procedure § 834 states at 513-515: The admissions or denials must be forthright, specific, and unqualified. A denial coupled with a general exception of doubtful import, will constitute an admission. A refusal to admit without specific denial or detailed reasons why the responder cannot truthfully admit or deny, is the equivalent of an admission.    [I]f the truth can be ascertained by reasonable inquiry, the responder must admit or deny. (Footnotes omitted.) As further pointed out in 4 Moore's Fed. Practice § 36.05 (2d ed. 1969) at 2748-2750: If the party wishes to deny the matters of which a request is admitted, he must do so `specifically.'    The denial must be either an absolute denial or a denial on information and belief, with the sources thereof given.    If the party served with the request cannot truthfully admit or deny the matters stated therein, he may so state; but he must set forth in detail the reasons why he cannot do so. A mere statement that he is `unable to admit or deny' or that he has no knowledge or no competent knowledge is not sufficient. (Footnotes omitted.) Kate's answers failed to comply with the rule; the district judge ruled correctly in deeming the request for admissions admitted.