CCP 2033.220: Can You Say You Don’t Know?

In California, CCP 2033.220 does not permit a bare “I don’t know” response to a request for admission. The answer must state that reasonable inquiry has been made and that information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable admission.

It must also admit true portions, deny untrue portions and identify any portion for which information remains insufficient (CCP § 2033.220(a)–(c)).

This guide covers inquiry, partial answers, verification, timing and challenges for defense teams in ordinary unlimited California civil litigation, not federal discovery responses and workflow.

What does CCP 2033.220 require when I don’t know the answer?

In California, CCP § 2033.220(c) requires a party relying on lack of information to state that reasonable inquiry concerning the particular request has been made and that information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable admission. Section 2033.220(a) also requires each answer to be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. A bare statement that the client does not remember omits the inquiry statement the statute requires. (CCP § 2033.220)

In California, a request for admission (RFA) asks another party to admit a document’s genuineness or the truth of a matter of fact, an opinion relating to fact, or an application of law to fact (CCP § 2033.010). The party that serves it is the requesting party, and the party that answers is the responding party. For general background, see this overview of requests for admission.

An insufficient-information answer identifies the part of a request the responding party cannot admit on the information available after inquiry. The statute ties the inquiry to “the matter in the particular request,” so it is measured request by request. It prescribes no checklist.

Quick reference: California RFA answers under CCP § 2033.220

These entries summarize answers under § 2033.220, objections under § 2033.230 and signatures under § 2033.240:

• All or part is true. Admit the true portion, either as expressed in the request or as reasonably and clearly qualified. [§ 2033.220(b)(1)]
• All or part is untrue. Deny the untrue portion. [§ 2033.220(b)(2)]
• Information remains insufficient. Specify the portion, and state that reasonable inquiry was made and that known or readily obtainable information is insufficient to admit. [§ 2033.220(b)(3), (c)]
• Only part is objectionable. Answer the remainder and state the specific ground for the objection. [§ 2033.230(a)–(b)]
• Signature. The responding party signs under oath unless the response contains only objections, and the attorney signs any response that contains an objection. [§ 2033.240(a), (c)]

What should a defense team check before saying information is insufficient?

California’s inquiry must concern the matter in the particular request, and § 2033.220(c) directs attention to information known or readily obtainable. The statute does not prescribe a fixed number of interviews, documents or searches. A request-specific record of the facts checked and the gaps remaining is a practical workflow aid, not a statutory safe harbor. (CCP § 2033.220(c))

For a defense firm, the first step is usually collecting facts from the client. Briefpoint drafts responses and objections, but the legal question of whether the inquiry was reasonable stays with the attorney. A general discovery preparation checklist can help organize the broader task.

Build a request-specific inquiry record

This is a workflow suggestion, not binding law. For each request, a team might:

1. Identify the exact proposition and the date range the request covers.
2. Ask the client contact who would know about that proposition.
3. Review the records that are readily available and bear on it, such as the sources covered in organizing discovery documents. That page is written for federal practice, so use it for organization only and not for California rules.
4. Note contradictions and unanswered follow-up questions.
5. Send the resulting position to the attorney for the response decision.

The statute does not say that asking only the client is always enough, that every third party must be contacted, or that the record must be produced. Gathering client answers does not by itself establish that an inquiry was reasonable under § 2033.220(c).

Can I admit part of a request and say I lack information about the rest?

Yes. California CCP § 2033.220(b)(1)–(3) requires admitting what is true, denying what is untrue, and specifying the part for which information or knowledge is insufficient. A qualified admission must be reasonable and clear, and any lack-of-information portion must satisfy § 2033.220(c). (CCP § 2033.220(b)–(c))

Worked response patterns

The following examples are invented and illustrate response structure. They are not ready-to-serve answers, and an attorney must adapt both the factual scope and the wording.

Suppose a request asks the responding party to admit that it received a particular notice. After an actual inquiry, the answer might read:

This answer does not add “therefore denied.” Section 2033.220 treats insufficient information and denial as different answers.

Next, suppose a request asks the responding party to admit that it received an email and read it. Where records establish receipt, the answer admits receipt. For whether a particular person read it, the answer specifies that portion and gives the § 2033.220(c) inquiry statement limited to it:

Finally, if reasonably available information establishes that a statement is untrue, § 2033.220(b)(2) calls for a denial of that portion, and § 2033.220(a) requires answers as complete and straightforward as that information permits.

Is lack of information an objection, and who signs the response?

Lack of information is addressed as an answer under California CCP § 2033.220(b)(3) and (c), not as a generic objection. Objections must clearly state their specific grounds, and any unobjectionable remainder must be answered under § 2033.230(a)–(b). The responding party signs under oath unless the response contains only objections, and the attorney signs any response containing an objection under § 2033.240(a) and (c). (CCP § 2033.230; CCP § 2033.240)

The three positions differ in what they say:

• A denial states that the matter, or a portion of it, is untrue.
• An insufficient-information answer identifies a factual gap that remains after reasonable inquiry.
• An objection asserts a specified legal ground, such as privilege. If the objection rests on privilege, the particular privilege must be stated, and a work-product claim must be expressly asserted (§ 2033.230(b)).

The general discovery objections overview is not California-specific, so treat the statutes as the authority.

When the responding party is a corporation, partnership, association or governmental agency, one of its officers or agents signs under oath on its behalf (§ 2033.240(b)). Subsection (b) adds a caution: if the officer or agent who signs is an attorney acting in that capacity for the party, the party waives lawyer-client privilege and work-product protection during later discovery from that attorney concerning the identity of the sources of the information in the response. The statute limits the waiver to that subject.

When is the response due if the investigation is unfinished?

For the ordinary California civil cases covered here, CCP § 2033.250(a) sets a base response period of 30 days after service, subject to the court’s power to shorten or extend it. An unfinished inquiry is not an extension provided by that subsection. Under § 2033.260(a)–(b), the parties may agree to extend the response date, but the agreement must be confirmed in writing that specifies the extended date. (CCP § 2033.250; CCP § 2033.260)

The 30 days is a base period, not a deadline calculated for a particular method of service. This article does not address any additional time that depends on the method of service. Section 2033.250(b) separately covers unlawful detainer actions and related proceedings under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 1159) of Title 3 of Part 3, which this guide excludes.

An agreement under § 2033.260 may be informal, but it must be confirmed in writing. Unless the agreement expressly says otherwise, it preserves the responding party’s right to respond to the covered requests in any manner § 2033.210, § 2033.220 and § 2033.230 allow (§ 2033.260(c)). The responding party must give notice of the agreement to all other parties who were served with a copy of the request (§ 2033.260(d)).

What limits apply to California requests for admission?

Section 2033.030(a) provides that no party may request, as a matter of right, that another party admit more than 35 matters that do not relate to the genuineness of documents. If the first set does not use the limit, the balance may be requested in later sets. (CCP § 2033.030)

Subsection (b) says that, unless a declaration under § 2033.050 has been made, a party need only respond to the first 35 such requests if it states an objection to the balance under § 2033.230 on the ground that the limit has been exceeded. The objection has to be stated. Subsection (c) treats requests about the genuineness of documents differently: they are not limited except as justice requires to protect the responding party from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense. Limited civil cases are outside this guide.

What happens if the other side challenges my lack-of-information answer?

In California, an evasive or incomplete answer can support a motion to compel a further RFA response under CCP § 2033.290(a)(1), with a meet-and-confer declaration required by subsection (b)(1). Separately, § 2033.420(a) allows a party that later proves a matter not admitted to seek its reasonable proof expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees. The court must award those expenses unless it finds one of the exceptions in § 2033.420(b)(1)–(4). (CCP § 2033.290; CCP § 2033.420)

A defective response is not the same as no response

A response that is late is treated differently from one that is merely deficient. Under § 2033.280, a party that fails to serve a timely response waives any objection to the requests, including privilege and work-product objections (subdivision (a)). On motion, the court may relieve the party from the waiver if it determines that both conditions are met: the party later served a response in substantial compliance with §§ 2033.210, 2033.220 and 2033.230, and the failure was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

The requesting party may then move for an order that the genuineness of documents and the truth of the matters in the requests be deemed admitted, together with a monetary sanction (§ 2033.280(b)). The court must make that order unless the responding party served, before the hearing, a proposed response in substantial compliance with § 2033.220. The court must impose a monetary sanction on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response necessitated the motion (§ 2033.280(c)).

Further-response sanctions and proof expenses are separate

A motion to compel a further response also reaches objections that are without merit or too general (§ 2033.290(a)(2)). Notice of the motion must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or by a specific later date to which the parties agreed in writing. Otherwise the requesting party waives the right to compel a further response (§ 2033.290(c)). The court must impose a monetary sanction on a party, person or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes the motion, unless it finds substantial justification or that the sanction would be unjust (§ 2033.290(d)).

Proof expenses under § 2033.420 arise after the requesting party proves the matter at issue. The court must order payment unless it finds one of four things:

1. An objection to the request was sustained or a response to it was waived under § 2033.290.
2. The admission sought was of no substantial importance.
3. The party failing to admit had reasonable ground to believe that it would prevail on the matter.
4. There was other good reason for the failure to admit.

Including the reasonable-inquiry sentence required by § 2033.220(c) does not by itself bring a response within any of these exceptions. The exceptions turn on the circumstances listed in § 2033.420(b).

How can Briefpoint help prepare California admission responses?

Briefpoint drafts responses and objections to requests for admission, with output editable in Microsoft Word and attorneys retaining final review. Client Bridge sends clients plain-language questions through a secure link so they can answer and upload documents for attorney review. These capabilities support preparation. The attorney still evaluates whether the inquiry and proposed answer satisfy California CCP § 2033.220.

For a defense team, the handoff runs in four steps:

1. Client answers and documents come in through Client Bridge.
2. The attorney assesses the facts and decides whether information is sufficient for each request.
3. Discovery response drafting produces an editable draft in Word.
4. The attorney reviews and finalizes the draft.

Attorneys retain final review of Briefpoint’s editable output, including the proposed response position. California’s signature requirements apply to the responding party and its attorney as specified in CCP § 2033.240.

See also discovery workflows for defense firms.

Book a demo to see how Briefpoint supports discovery response drafting.

Watch the Briefpoint demo:

FAQs about CCP 2033.220

Can I just answer “unknown” to a California request for admission?

No. California CCP § 2033.220(c) requires more than the word “unknown” when lack of information is the reason for failing to admit. The answer must state that reasonable inquiry concerning the particular request has been made and that information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable admission. Identify any uncertain portion separately under § 2033.220(b)(3).

Do I have to deny the whole request if only part is false?

No. California CCP § 2033.220(b)(1)–(3) separates the true, untrue and insufficiently known portions of a request. Admit the true part, deny the untrue part and identify any remaining uncertainty. A qualified admission must be reasonable and clear, and a lack-of-information portion must also include the inquiry statement required by subsection (c).

Does saying I lack information avoid verification?

No. An insufficient-information answer is still a substantive RFA answer in California. CCP § 2033.240(a) requires the responding party to sign under oath unless the response contains only objections. For a corporation, partnership, association or governmental agency, an officer or agent signs under subsection (b), and the attorney signs any response containing an objection under subsection (c).

Can I get more time to investigate requests for admission?

The parties may agree to extend the California RFA response date under CCP § 2033.260(a), but subsection (b) requires written confirmation that specifies the extended date. The base period is 30 days after service under § 2033.250(a), subject to court modification. An unfinished investigation alone is not an agreed extension.

Can I owe attorney’s fees after answering that I lack information?

Potentially. California CCP § 2033.420(a) addresses a failure to admit a matter that the requesting party later proves. It permits a motion for the reasonable expenses of making that proof, including reasonable attorney’s fees. Under subsection (b), the court must make the order unless it finds an exception, including that the party had reasonable ground to believe it would prevail or that there was other good reason.

Disclaimer

The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information. This website contains links to other third-party websites. Such links are only for the convenience of the reader, user or browser. Readers of this website should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter. No reader, user, or browser of this site should act or refrain from acting on the basis of information on this site without first seeking legal advice from counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. Only your individual attorney can provide assurances that the information contained herein – and your interpretation of it – is applicable or appropriate to your particular situation. Use of, and access to, this website or any of the links or resources contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader, user, or browser and website authors, contributors, contributing law firms, or committee members and their respective employers.