Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 216
(October 1, 2010)
Paragraphs (f) and (g) are designed to address certain problems with Rule 216, including the service of hundreds of requests for admission. For the vast majority of cases, the limitation to 30 requests now found in paragraph (f) will eliminate this abusive practice. Other noted problems include the bundling of discovery requests to form a single document into which the requests to admit were intermingled. This practice worked to the disadvantage of certain litigants, particularly pro se litigants, who do not understand that failure to respond within the time allowed results in the requests being deemed admitted. Paragraph (g) provides for requests to be contained in a separate paper containing a boldface warning regarding the effect of the failure to respond within 28 days. Consistent with Vision Point of Sale Inc. v. Haas, 226 Ill.2d 334 (2007), trial courts are vested with discretion with respect to requests for admission.
(Revised July 1, 1985)
This rule is derived from former Rule 18. Despite the usefulness of requests for admission of facts in narrowing issues, such requests seem to have been used very little in Illinois practice. The committee was of the opinion that perhaps this has resulted in part from the fact that they are provided for in the text of a rule that reads as if it relates primarily to admission of the genuineness of documents. Accordingly, it has rewritten the rule to place the authorization for request for admission of facts in a separate paragraph. No change in the substance of former Rule 18 was intended.
Subparagraph (e) was amended in 1985 to resolve an apparent conflict about whether admissions are carried over into subsequent cases between the same parties, involving the same subject matter, as are the fruits of other discovery activities (see Rule 212(d)). Relief from prior admissions is available to the same extent in the subsequent action as in the case which was dismissed or remanded.