The difficulty with a request for admission is right there in the name. When someone asks you to admit that you did something, it's only natural that you push back a bit, whatever the admission may be.
Admit that you were the one who brought the potato salad!
Admit that you were wearing a striped suit!
Admit that you love conures!
But even if one overcomes these hurdles, there are further difficulties in RFA practice, waiting under every upturned rock. For instance, many scheduling orders place a limit on the number of RFAs that can be propounded, and so, like with rogs, there may be a dispute over whether a given RFA covers too much ground. Such was the case in Friday's decision in Scale Biosciences, Inc. v. Parse Biosciences, Inc., C.A. No. 22-1597-CJB, D.I. 410 (D. Del. May 23, 2025).
In that case, the plaintiff sent RFAs asking the defendant to "Admit that the following graphic illustrates, at least in part, the operation of the Parse Mini, Parse Mid Products, and Parse Mega Products," and several similar RFAs directed to several products. Defendant objected that these RFAs were compounded and a motion to compel was filed.
Judge Burke denied the motion to compel:
[A]n RFA is "required to be simple and direct, and limited to singular relevant facts." In Integra, theCourt assessed an RFA, for example, that asked the plaintiffs to admit that "none of the applications for the Patents-in-Suit expressly disclosed the use of ‘polyethyleneimine,' ‘PEI,' or ‘Lupasol' prior to the filing of continuation-in-part Application No. 12/156,085 In May 29, 2008." The Court concluded that this RFA was an improper compound RFA because it required "an assessment of multiple factual inquiries . . . RFA 19 and RFAs 35-51 . . . are similarly improper—in that each requires Defendant to engage in separate, detailed factual inquiries as to whether a statement is true (e.g., that the graphic illustrates the operation of a product, or that one product is representative of another product) as it relates to multiple accused products or product versions. Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's request as to these RFAs.
Id. (internal citations omitted).
Its interesting that the test described here seems a bit different from the test used to determine whether interrogatories are compound. I would describe that test now, but I need another blog post this week, so wait until Thursday.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
