Shawn Wood Published in Chicago Lawyer

The December issue of Chicago Lawyer features an article by Shawn Wood (An inconvenient truthiness about Rule 216) on controversy over Rule 216, which deals with “Requests to Admit” in litigation. The recipient of a “Request to Admit,” he explains, has exactly 28 days to respond and serve admissions or denials (or objections), or else the "facts" are deemed admitted.

“There has been a growing buzz among members of the bench and bar that Rule 216 needs to be fixed. Detractors insist that, in the wrong hands, the rule's celebration of punctuality may sacrifice truth and justice in favor of expediency.” Shawn cites instances in which attorneys send requests to admit by snail mail or bury them among piles of discovery to shorten the time for the opposing party to prepare a brief, raising the issue of “whether the point of rule 216 is to obtain information or to set a trap in hope of winning by default.”

Shawn also says that there’s also a great deal of confusion regarding how to comply with Rule 216, especially in terms of:

1. Who needs to sign the responses under sworn oath; 
2. Whether the responses need to be filed with the court; and 
3. Whether the requests are pleadings or discovery, which may impact whether the requests may be served beyond the discovery closure date.

“This debate will certainly rage on, as the Illinois Supreme Court Rules Committee is set to meet in January 2007 to consider proposals for amending Rule 216, and various bar associations and judicial conferences have weighed in on the best way to improve the rule to achieve ‘substantial justice.’”