How Bulldog Lawyers Avoid Turning Discovery into Disaster
Requests for Admission are supposed to be boring.
They exist for one reason: to narrow issues for trial by confirming facts that aren’t really in dispute and authenticating documents everyone already knows are real. Used properly, they save time and money.
But that’s not how they’re being used anymore.
Increasingly, Requests for Admission (RFAs) are weaponized—served in bulk, drafted ambiguously, and designed to force defense counsel into an impossible choice: admit something you shouldn’t, or deny something that might later cost your client the case.
If you’ve ever been served 50, 70, or 100 RFAs—many aimed squarely at disputed issues—you know exactly what’s happening. This isn’t discovery. It’s a trap.
A Bulldog Lawyer sees it coming.
The Rule That Binds Your Hands (and Saves You)
In Minnesota, Rule 36.01 governs Requests for Admission. It draws a hard ethical line:
You may not deny an RFA you know to be true.
You are not required to admit a fact or issue that is genuinely disputed.
And when an RFA is only partially true, you must admit the part that’s true and explain the rest.
There is no room for gamesmanship here. Courts expect responses that fairly meet the substance of the request. Sloppy denials don’t just weaken credibility—they invite sanctions.
If you claim you lack information, you must say the magic words:
After reasonable inquiry, the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to admit or deny.
Miss that language, and you’re exposed.
Why Improper Denials Are Dangerous
This is where lawyers get hurt.
If the court decides your response doesn’t comply with Rule 36, it can:
- Deem the matter admitted for all purposes
- Order amended responses
- Or hit you with Rule 37 sanctions, including attorney fees
Once an RFA is deemed admitted, it’s locked in. No jury. No argument. No undo button.
Courts have discretion, but they don’t hesitate when an admission goes to the heart of the case. If the requesting party later proves what you denied—and you lacked a reasonable basis—fees are mandatory.
Bulldogs don’t roll those dice casually.
The Three Most Common RFA Traps (and How Bulldogs Handle Them)
- The “Authenticate and Characterize” Trap
These start innocently:
Admit Exhibit X is an email dated December 12…
Then they sneak in characterization:
…demanding payment of $7,000.
The Bulldog response:
- Admit authentication
- State the document speaks for itself
- Deny the characterization
Clean. Ethical. Safe.
- The “Admit Liability” Trap
Any RFA using words like breach, duty, or obligation is asking for a legal conclusion.
If liability is disputed, the response is simple:
Denied. The request seeks a legal conclusion that is at issue in this case.
No hedging. No overthinking.
- The “Hidden Admission” Trap
These are the most dangerous.
Admit Jones failed to pay Acme by December 1.
“Failed” can mean did not pay—or breached an obligation. One is factual. The other is legal.
The Bulldog does not guess.
You object to ambiguity, explain it, and deny accordingly. Courts reward clarity, not cleverness.
The Bulldog Rule of Thumb
RFAs are powerful because admitted means admitted forever.
But the rules protect lawyers who:
- Read carefully
- Respond precisely
- Explain when language is slippery
- And refuse to be bullied into false admissions
Discovery is not the place for bravado. It’s the place for judgment.
Bulldogs don’t bark here.
They answer cleanly, ethically, and with surgical precision—and they live to fight the real battle at trial.