N.M. R. Civ. P. Dist. Ct. 1-036
Each matter of which an admission is requested shall be separately set forth. The matter is admitted unless, within thirty (30) days after service of the request, or within such shorter or longer time as the court may allow, the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a written answer or objection addressed to the matter, signed by the party or by his attorney, but, unless the court shortens the time, a defendant shall not be required to serve answers or objections before the expiration of forty-five (45) days after service of the summons and complaint upon him. If objection is made, the reasons therefor shall be stated. The answer shall specifically deny the matter or set forth in detail the reasons why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter. A denial shall fairly meet the substance of the requested admission, and when good faith requires that a party qualify his answer or deny only a part of the matter of which an admission is requested, he shall specify so much of it as is true and qualify or deny the remainder. An answering party may not give lack of information or knowledge as a reason for failure to admit or deny unless he states that he has made reasonable inquiry and that the information known or readily obtainable by him is insufficient to enable him to admit or deny. A party who considers that a matter of which an admission has been requested presents a genuine issue for trial may not, on that ground alone, object to the request; he may, subject to the provisions of Paragraph C of Rule 1-037 NMRA, deny the matter or set forth reasons why he cannot admit or deny it.
The party who has requested the admissions may move to determine the sufficiency of the answers or objections. Unless the court determines that an objection is justified, it shall order that an answer be served. If the court determines that an answer does not comply with the requirements of this rule, it may order either that the matter is admitted or that an amended answer be served. The court may, in lieu of these orders, determine that final disposition of the request be made at a pretrial conference or at a designated time prior to trial. The provisions of Subparagraph (4) of Paragraph A of Rule 1-037 NMRA apply to the award of expenses incurred in relation to the motion.
N.M. R. Civ. P. Dist. Ct. 1-036
For assessment of costs on failure to admit, see Rule 1-037 NMRA. For proceedings on motion for summary judgment, see Rule 1-056 NMRA. Compiler's notes. - Paragraph A and Rule 1-037 are deemed to have superseded 105-834, C.S. 1929, which was substantially the same. Request for admission of facts is discovery procedure; thus, such a request does not toll the two-year period for taking action to bring a trial to its final determination, which period is provided by Rule 41(e) (see now Rule 1-041 NMRA). Sender v. Montoya, 1963-NMSC-220, 73 N.M. 287, 387 P.2d 860; but see State ex rel. Reynolds v. Molybdenum Corp. of Am., 1972-NMSC-027, 83 N.M. 690, 496 P.2d 1086. Rule is not self-executing and if one would take advantage of its provisions all the facts necessary to invoke the consequences must be made in some way to appear. Robinson v. Navajo Freight Lines, 1962-NMSC-043, 70 N.M. 215, 372 P.2d 801. Use at trial of requests and responses subject to evidence rules. - As evidence, requests for admissions and responses thereto are subject to the rules of admissibility, and must be tendered under the rules for introducing evidence. Robinson v. Navajo Freight Lines, 1962-NMSC-043, 70 N.M. 215, 372 P.2d 801. The copy of the answer served upon party must be sworn. Robinson v. Navajo Freight Lines, 1962-NMSC-043, 70 N.M. 215, 372 P.2d 801 (decided before 1979 amendment). Response within reasonable time proper absent specification or motion. - This rule provides two methods by which the requesting party can have the time period designated - specification in the request and on motion and notice. The rule indicates that the reference to 10 days is merely a limitation on the former method which is not applicable if the latter method is employed, and in view of the defendant's failure to employ either method, the plaintiff cannot be held accountable if he has responded within a reasonable time. Apodaca v. Gordon, 1974-NMCA-033, 86 N.M. 210, 521 P.2d 1159 (decided before 1979 amendment). Failure to answer request admits all matters therein. - Where plaintiff serves upon defendant a written request for the admission of facts and genuineness of documents, which request is never answered, each of the matters included in this request is deemed admitted. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Nix, 1973-NMSC-069, 85 N.M. 415, 512 P.2d 1251. District courts have discretion to deem requests admitted. - District courts have discretion to determine whether counsel's failure to respond to a request for admission is excusable and, if not, to deem the requests admitted. State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't. v. Mercer-Smith, 2015-NMCA-093, cert. granted, 2015-NMCERT-008. The district court did not abuse its discretion in deeming admitted requests for admission in contempt proceedings where the district court confirmed that the procedures for providing notice of hearings was complied with and that the attorney for the Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) failed to appear at a hearing on a motion to strike CYFD's requests for additional time to respond to the requests for admission. State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't. v. Mercer-Smith, 2015-NMCA-093, cert. granted, 2015-NMCERT-008. Specific denial required. - An averment that neither admits nor denies the remaining allegations of the request but demands the strictest proof thereof fails to put at issue any material fact alleged in the request. Aktiengesellschaft Der Harlander, etc. v. Lawrence Walker Cotton Co., 1955-NMSC-090, 60 N.M. 154, 288 P.2d 691. Time and signatures requirements demand strict compliance. - The unexcused late filing of an answer to requests for admissions or the filing of an unsworn answer is equivalent to the filing of no answer providing correct procedure is complied with in making the requests for admissions. Robinson v. Navajo Freight Lines, 1962-NMSC-043, 70 N.M. 215, 372 P.2d 801 (decided before 1979 amendment). An unexcused failure to file a timely, sworn response is the equivalent of filing no response and that matters requested are thereby deemed admitted. Morrison v. Wyrsch, 1979-NMSC-093, 93 N.M. 556, 603 P.2d 295 (decided under pre-1979 rule). Denial on belief of matter within personal knowledge improper. - A matter of which party has personal knowledge, or a matter which is presumptively within his knowledge, cannot be denied on information or belief, but must be answered positively or such denial may be disregarded as an evasion. Aktiengesellschaft Der Harlander, etc v. Lawrence Walker Cotton Co., 1955-NMSC-090, 60 N.M. 154, 288 P.2d 691. Requests and responses not part of trial record until introduced in evidence. - While requests for admissions and responses thereto are part of the entire record, in the sense that any interrogatory or deposition becomes a part of the record because all are filed in the clerk's office, they do not become part of the trial record proper until introduced in evidence. Robinson v. Navajo Freight Lines, 1962-NMSC-043, 70 N.M. 215, 372 P.2d 801. Parties on same side of suit remain separate. - These rules, as well as the common understanding of what is meant by a party to a lawsuit, are inconsistent with the position that all parties on one side of a lawsuit are but one party. Romero v. Felter, 1972-NMSC-032, 83 N.M. 736, 497 P.2d 738. Burden is on party opposing withdrawal of admission to satisfy the court that it would be prejudiced. - Where plaintiff, a grower and harvester of chile peppers, and defendant, a dehydration chile plant that purchases, processes, and dehydrates different varieties of chile, entered into a contract where plaintiff would deliver raw chile peppers to defendant, which would then wash, dehydrate, weigh and pay for the chile, and where plaintiff filed a lawsuit against defendant when there was a dispute as to how much chile was delivered and how much was paid for, the district court did not err in denying plaintiff's motion to withdraw an admission that he made in response to a written discovery request limiting his claim to fourteen loads of chile alleged not to have been paid for rather than the full one million pounds of chile peppers that the parties had contracted for, because the district court's ruling that defendant would be prejudiced was supported by the fact that the trial was two weeks away, discovery was closed and that the discovery would have to be conducted in a foreign country. Valerio v. San Mateo Enterprises, Inc., 2017-NMCA-059. Failure to request withdrawal of erroneous admission. - Despite its argument that its admission as to its lack of knowledge of an injured employee's preexisting physical impairment was a typographical error, where the defendant - employer did not seek permission from the trial court for leave to amend or withdraw the admission, the admission was binding in its effect. Schreck v. Plastech Research Div., 1988-NMCA-079, 107 N.M. 786, 765 P.2d 759 (decided under pre-1988 version of 52-2-6 NMSA 1978). Law reviews. - For comment on Sender v. Montoya, 73 N.M. 287, 387 P.2d 860 (1963), see 4 Nat. Resources J. 413 (1964). For case note, "CIVIL PROCEDURE - New Mexico Adopts the Modern View of Collateral Estoppel: Silva v. State," see 18 N.M.L. Rev. 597 (1988). Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. - 23 Am. Jur. 2d Depositions and Discovery §§314 to 356. Judicial stipulation or formal admission of facts by counsel as available upon subsequent trial, 100 A.L.R. 775. What constitutes a "denial" within Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 36 pertaining to admissions before trial, 36 A.L.R.2d 1192. Time for filing responses to requests for admissions; allowance of additional time, 93 A.L.R.2d 757. Admissions to prevent continuance sought to secure testimony of absent witnesses in civil case, 15 A.L.R.3d 1272. Party's duty, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 36(a) and similar state statutes and rules, to respond to requests for admission of facts not within his personal knowledge, 20 A.L.R.3d 756. Accused's right to discovery or inspection of "rap sheets" or similar police records about prosecution witnesses, 95 A.L.R.3d 832. Formal sufficiency of response to request for admissions under state discovery rules, 8 A.L.R.4th 728. Permissible scope, respecting nature of inquiry, of demand for admissions under modern state civil rules of procedure, 42 A.L.R.4th 489. Extension of time for serving response to request for admissions under Rule 36(a), as amended, of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 46 A.L.R. Fed. 821. Withdrawal or amendment of admissions under Rule 36(b) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 64 A.L.R. Fed. 746. 27 C.J.S. Discovery §§ 113 to 131, 133.