Thread: Objecting to questions for notice to admit

Can a defendant object to any and all questions in a notice to admit ? Example: Defendant objects to question 1 :"Defendant applied to citibank for issuance of the card" on the grounds citibank is not the plaintiff in this case and so this question is not relevant to these proceedings. (named plaintiff is nco)
Defendant objects to question 2: "Defendant received the card" on the grounds plaintiff was not the original issuer of the card and thus this question is not relevant to these proceedings.Thanks

Originally Posted by peeper

Can a defendant object to any and all questions in a notice to admit ?

Exactly what you are able to do will depend on the court but generally you aren't supposed to object generally, at least as a reason not to answer. Objections should be specific enough and valid. I don't want to answer is probably not specific or valid.

Of course are the admissions really QUESTIONS? Interrogatories are questions. Admissions usually are statements that you admit to reduce the issues at trial, or deny which puts them into play for the other side to prove. If they prove them and you should have just admitted, you can be ordered to pay various costs. Of course you likely already have a clause in your contract that awards attorney fees to the victor.

Example: Defendant objects to question 1 :"Defendant applied to citibank for issuance of the card" on the grounds citibank is not the plaintiff in this case and so this question is not relevant to these proceedings. (named plaintiff is nco)

But don't they claim to be an assignee of Citibank?

Defendant objects to question 2: "Defendant received the card" on the grounds plaintiff was not the original issuer of the card and thus this question is not relevant to these proceedings.

The concept of assignment is well settled law. It seems like you are trying to attack the very idea that assignments are possible. I doubt that overturning Corbin in his grave is going to get you very far.

If you want to continue the battle, you will have to get past discovery. Instead of thinking of it as something against you, consider that discovery could be something you could use to get the information you need to maybe win or at least get past summary judgment.

What would happen if you sent them questions? What would happen if you sent them admissions? Would they admit? Think about it.

[Posted by 76.180.203.6 via WebWarper: saving traffic, antivirus, acceleration, anonymizer, optimization of sites This is added while posting a message to avoid misuse.
Try: http://webwarper.net/webwarper.exe Example of viewing: Objecting to questions for notice to admit - Credit Talk Forum ]

Ok bob how about answering this way.At this time defendant does not admit to question
1: "Defendant sighned original application for the credit card".Defendant has not been provided with a copy of the original application to verify that the signature on it is the actual signature of the defendants and thus the defendant request the plaintiff to provide a copy of the original application to the defendant to verify.

At this time defendant does not admit to question 2:"Defendant received the credit card".The plaintiff has not provided any legal documentation to the defendant that the original application was approved or that the defendant was issued the card in question.

Originally Posted by peeper

Ok bob how about answering this way.At this time defendant does not admit to question

I think if you could read how some lawyers have responded to admissions, you might find that you are making this more complicated than it needs to be. I'm sorry but I can't tell you exactly what to say, even if I think I know. Perhaps someone else can more specifically help. I'll try to continue to respond to general questions.

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

I've seen answers to admissions and interrogatories that looked like this:

"Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny and hence denies the allegations made in paragraph 2 of the petition."

And I've seen:

"Defendant lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 3 of the complaint."

Whatever happened to the simple sentences "I don't know WTF you're talking about" and "In English, please".

They aren't used in legal proceedings.