Requests to Admit in Illinois: How and When To Respond (The 28-Day Rule)

I once read a tongue-in-cheek article that said if you’re ever served with a Request to Admit Fact (RTA), you should staple it to your forehead. (Ouch!)

That way, you won’t forget about the RTA and miss the 28-day deadline to send your sworn responses to the opposing side.  And while some recent cases may have softened Illinois’ draconian RTA rules, the hyperbolic sentiment expressed in the “staple statement” endures: a failure to timely respond to an RTA can have grave consequences for your case.  The main one being that the facts (or documents) contained in the RTA can be deemed admitted against you.

Once that happens, the party sending the RTA can move for summary judgment and win all or most of his case.

Armagan v. Pesha, 2014 IL App (1st) 121840 examines the question of when the 28-day timing requirement starts and ends and when the service of and response to an RTA is deemed complete under Illinois law.

The plaintiff deposited over 250 gold coins with the defendants who operated a rare coin shop.  Plaintiff alleged he placed the coins with the defendants temporarily with the understanding that plaintiff could always get them back.  Several months later when plaintiff asked for the coins back, defendants apparently refused and plaintiff sued for conversion, breach of bailment and other claims.

During discovery, plaintiff mailed an RTA on defendants on November 18, 2010.  Defendants filed their response with the court on December 17, 2010 (29 days later) and mailed the response to plaintiff that same day.  Plaintiff then moved to deem the RTA facts admitted on the basis that defendant missed the 28-day deadline by one day.

The trial court agreed (November 18 service is complete November 22, 2010; December 17, 2010 service is complete on December 21, 2010 – 29 days after November 22, 2010), deemed the facts admitted and entered summary judgment for plaintiff for almost $500,000.  An expensive, one-day mistake to be sure.  Defendants appealed.

Held: Trial Court reversed.  Defendants’ RTA response was timely under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 12.

The First District found that defendants timely responded to the RTA.  In doing so, the Court discussed the interplay between Supreme Court Rules 216, 12 and 11 which govern RTAs and the manner of serving documents. The key rules:

the purpose of Rule 216  is to narrow issues for trial and only requires the responding party to serve his responses within the 28-day deadline; as opposed to filing them with the court within 28 days;

– Rule 216 requires only that the RTA responses be served (by the responding party), not received (by the requesting party) within 28 days;

– failing to comply with Rule 216’s requirements can result in a judicial admission of the facts contained in the RTA;

– Under Rule 12(c), service is complete four (4) days after mailing;

– the method of service differs from proof of service;

– serving a document by U.S. mail is an acceptable method of service; 

– Rule 11 specifically allows a party to serve documents (other than complaint) by U.S. mail (“regular” mail);

¶¶ 16-20.

Application: Plaintiff mailed his RTA on November 18, 2010.  Under Rule 12, service of the RTA was complete on November 22, 2010 – four days later.  Defendants then had 28 days – through December 20, 2010 – to serve their response.  Since defendants served their RTA response by placing it in the mail on December 17, 2010, they complied with the 28-day deadline (with three days to spare). ¶ 23.

Policy concerns also motivated the Court’s reversal.  It noted that Illinois has a broad policy of cases being resolved on the merits instead of technicalities and that discovery is not designed for tactical gamesmanship or a trap for the unwary.  Accordingly, the Court would have allowed the defendants response even if it was late under Rule 183 (which governs extension of time for “good cause”).  ¶¶ 25-26.

Take-aways: A Request to Admit is the quintessential “gotcha” discovery device.  The serving party hopes you will blow the 28-day deadline and then do exactly what the plaintiff did here: try to get the facts deemed admitted against you.

This case seems to strike a fair balance between giving teeth to a discovery tool while at the same time being willing to look at the realities of litigation practice, where the exigencies of the moment practically dictate last-minute responses.

In hindsight, the defendants’ attorney probably should have hand-delivered and faxed (and e-mailed) his response instead of mailing it.  That would have saved him a lot of time and (I imagine) frantic energy trying to undo the $500,000 judgment against his client.


Published by


Litigation attorney at Bielski Chapman, Ltd. representing businesses and individuals in business litigation, post-judgment enforcement, collections and real estate litigation.

215 thoughts on “Requests to Admit in Illinois: How and When To Respond (The 28-Day Rule)”

  1. Pingback: viagra online
  2. Pingback: viagra experiences
  3. Pingback: cialis coupon 2016
  4. Pingback: buy cialis rush
  5. Pingback: celecoxib brand
  6. Pingback: wiki keflex
  7. Pingback: cymbalta prices
  8. Pingback: cialis 20 mg cost
  9. Pingback: cialis in europe
  10. Pingback: viagra costs
  11. Pingback: sildenafil 100mg
  12. Pingback: viagra for sale
  13. Pingback: viagra sex
  14. Pingback: nizagara vs viagra
  15. Pingback: viagra meaning
  16. Pingback: cialis tadalafil
  17. Pingback: viagra roman
  18. Pingback: cost of viagra
  19. Pingback: jodi west viagra
  20. Pingback: cialis wikipedia
  21. Pingback: cialis daily use
  22. Pingback: sex on viagra
  23. Pingback: viagra imposter
  24. Pingback: acheter viagra 25
  25. Pingback: cialis otc months
  26. Pingback: viagra on sale
  27. Pingback: buy cialis
  28. Pingback: viagra logo
  29. Pingback: goodrx cialis
  30. Pingback: free viagra
  31. Pingback: mexican viagra
  32. Pingback: cialis 10 mg
  33. Pingback: womens viagra
  34. Pingback: gabapentin 300 mg
  35. Pingback: vardenafil price
  36. Pingback: sildenafil cost uk
  37. Pingback: meloxicam for cats
  38. Pingback: what is metoprolol
  39. Pingback: viagra soft gel
  40. Pingback: cvs cialis cost
  41. Pingback: levitra wiki
  42. Pingback: prednisone 20mg
  43. Pingback: buspar medicine
  44. Pingback: zanaflex 4mg
  45. Pingback: wellbutrin anxiety
  46. Pingback: voltaren reviews
  47. Pingback: clonidine dosage
  48. Pingback: flagyl antibiotic
  49. Pingback: snorting viagra
  50. Pingback: cialis ingredients
  51. Pingback: sildenafil capsule
  52. Pingback: 500 mg amoxicillin
  53. Pingback: amoxicillin dose
  54. Pingback: cephalexin 250 mg
  55. Pingback: cleocin
  56. Pingback: azithromycin 250mg
  57. Pingback: cialis overdose
  58. Pingback: cialis mastercard
  59. Pingback: buy levitra online
  60. Pingback: cialis online
  61. Pingback: cialis 10 mg price
  62. Pingback: canadian viagra
  63. Pingback: no rx viagra
  64. Pingback: vardenafil cost
  65. Pingback: what is furosemide
  66. Pingback: careprost china
  67. Pingback: clomid fsh
  68. Pingback: domperidone mg
  69. Pingback: cialis soft pills
  70. Pingback: cialis 20mg
  71. Pingback: tadalafil online
  72. Pingback: best viagra prices
  73. Pingback: homemade viagra
  74. Pingback: viagra connect cvs
  75. Pingback: omeprazole baby
  76. Pingback: celexa vs cymbalta
  77. Pingback: herbal viagra
  78. Pingback: atorvastatin 40
  79. Pingback: generic viagra
  80. Pingback: sildenafil 50 mg
  81. Pingback:
  82. Pingback: viagra otc
  83. Pingback: 1
  84. Pingback: cialis best price
  85. Pingback: cialis from canada

Comments are closed.