How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Law Educator, Esq. Your Own Question
Law Educator, Esq.
Law Educator, Esq., Attorney
Category: Legal
Satisfied Customers: 118180
Experience:  JA Mentor -Attorney Labor/employment, corporate, sports law, admiralty/maritime and civil rights law
Type Your Legal Question Here...
Law Educator, Esq. is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

I served a request for admission to the lawyer representing

Customer Question

I served a request for admission to the lawyer representing some people I have sued for breach of contract. questions such as " admit the signatures on the contract dated 2/24/2015 belong to the defendants " he responded to every ( 17 ) questions as " confusing, vague and ambiguous. Cannot admit or deny, therefore deny." I included the required documents to prove that the questions should be admitted to and the proof is substantial. I'm curious as to what his game is because as I understand it, if I can prove he should have admitted to them, he could be in deep shit. By the way, his first response was to file a motion to strike my request for admissions.
Submitted: 1 year ago.
Category: Legal
Expert:  Law Educator, Esq. replied 1 year ago.
Thank you for your question. I look forward to working with you to provide you the information you are seeking for educational purposes only.
You are correct in that those responses are inappropriate to that type of direct question, so I would file a motion to deem requests for admissions admitted and to strike their responses as being inappropriate. That is not a good faith answer. So you should file a Motion to Strike Answers to Requests for Admissions and you need to go to the court and argue that the replies were intentionally in bad faith and as such they should be deemed admitted.