Claude Response

Based on my analysis of these documents, here’s what constitutes a proper response under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 216:

1. Requirements of Rule 216 for Proper Responses

Rule 216 mandates that within 28 days of service, the responding party must provide a written answer that:

• Specifically addresses each request actually served
• Either admits, denies, or explains why they cannot truthfully admit or deny each matter
• If unable to admit or deny, must “set forth in detail the reasons why”
• Must respond to the actual language of the requests, not rewritten versions

2. Options Available to Responding Party

For each request, the responding party may:

• Admit the matter
• Deny the matter
• Object to the request (with written objection)
• State inability to admit or deny with detailed explanation of why they cannot do so

3. Evaluation of Plaintiff’s Response

The response in Document 2 fundamentally fails to comply with Rule 216. The plaintiff:

• Responded to only 10 “requests” when 30 were served
• More critically, fabricated entirely different requests than those actually served
• Never addressed a single one of Defendant’s actual 30 requests

For example:

• Defendant’s Actual Request No. 1: About operating rental businesses from multiple properties
• Plaintiff’s Fabricated “Request No. 1”: About not signing a written contract

This constitutes a complete non-response under the rule.

4. Consequences of Improper/Non-Response

Rule 216(f) is unequivocal: “Each matter of which an admission is requested is admitted unless, within 28 days after service of the request… the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a written answer or objection.”

Consequences include:

• Automatic deemed admission of all unanswered requests
• Admissions become conclusively established unless the court permits withdrawal
• Potential Rule 137 sanctions for bad faith responses
• Possible professional discipline for attorneys who sign fabricated responses

5. Assessment: Answering Different Questions

No, answering different questions than those asked categorically fails to satisfy Rule 216. The Illinois Supreme Court has held that “substantial compliance is insufficient where a party completely fails to respond to the actual requests served” (Kedzie & 103rd Currency Exchange, Inc. v. Hodge).

Creating and answering your own questions while ignoring the opponent’s actual requests:

• Violates the plain language of Rule 216
• Defeats the rule’s purpose of expediting trials by establishing facts
• May constitute sanctionable conduct under Rule 137

The defendant’s motion appears well-founded – all 30 requests should be deemed admitted due to the complete failure to respond to any actual request served.

Gemini Response

Under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 216, a proper response to a Request for Admission must be served within 28 days and must directly admit, deny, object to, or explain why the party cannot answer each specific request as it is written. Answering different questions than those asked is not a proper response and is treated as a complete failure to respond.

Requirements for a Proper Response

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 216 sets forth clear requirements for responding to Requests for Admission. The purpose of these requests is to narrow the issues for trial by establishing facts that do not need to be proven. A proper response must be:

• Timely: The response must be served on the requesting party within 28 days of receiving the requests.
• Written: The answer or objection must be in writing.
• Direct: The response must directly address each specific matter for which an admission is requested.
• Signed and Verified: The response must be signed by the responding party under oath, certifying that the statements are true and correct.

Options for the Responding Party

When served with Requests for Admission, a party has four options for each individual request:

1. Admit: State that the matter is true. An admission is considered conclusively established for the purpose of the lawsuit unless the court allows it to be withdrawn.
2. Deny: State that the matter is false.
3. Object: State a legal reason why the request is improper and should not be answered.
4. Explain Inability to Answer: If the party cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter, they must provide a detailed written explanation of the reasons why.

Evaluation of the Plaintiff’s Response

The document titled “Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant’s Requests to Admit” is not a proper response under Rule 216.

The Defendant, Brandon McGivern, served 30 specific requests for admission on June 24, 2025. However, the Plaintiff, Kyle Hadley, did not respond to any of those 30 requests. Instead, on July 3, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a document that invented ten entirely new and different “requests” and then answered those.

For example:

• Defendant’s Actual Request No. 1: “You operated rental businesses involving multiple properties from June 2022 to present…”.
• Plaintiff’s Fabricated “Request No. 1”: “Admit that Plaintiff did not sign a written contract for the purchase of 6122 N. Winthrop Ave., Unit C”.

This pattern of responding to fabricated questions is repeated for all ten of the Plaintiff’s responses, while ignoring all 30 of the Defendant’s actual requests. This constitutes a complete failure to respond.

Consequences of an Improper Response

Failing to respond properly to Requests for Admission carries significant consequences:

• Deemed Admissions: If a party fails to serve a response within 28 days, all facts in the requests are automatically deemed admitted (considered true) by the court.
• Court Order: The requesting party can file a motion, like the one filed by the Defendant on July 23, 2025, asking the court to enter an order officially deeming the facts admitted.
• Sanctions: A court can impose sanctions under Rule 137 for filing documents that are not well-grounded in fact or are submitted in bad faith. In his motion, the Defendant requests monetary sanctions against both the Plaintiff and his attorney, Mason Cole, for this conduct.

Answering Different Questions

Answering different questions than those asked does not satisfy Rule 216. The rule requires a response to the opponent’s specific requests and provides “no exception for rewriting the opponent’s requests and responding to fabricated versions”. By ignoring the Defendant’s 30 requests and inventing 10 of his own, the Plaintiff has failed to respond as required by the rule, and the facts in the Defendant’s original 30 requests are therefore subject to being deemed admitted by the court.