suppose a party is seeking discovery on an opponent.
The opponent refuses to answer discovery because they say "irrelevant, not related to the claims".
If the opponent does that on interrogatories the correct course is to motion the court to compel answers by telling the court how those interrogatories are specifically relevant.
So, if the issue is over request for admissions and the opponent claims "irrelevant, not related to the claims" what is the proper course here?
A party could do a motion to deem matters admitted. But how much of, if any, detail about relevance should the party put in their motion to deem matters admitted? Some people claim that all request for admissions are relevant if they concern any aspect of the case. So, how much of if any detail concering relevance should go into a motion to deem matters admitted?
I am adding the following.
The problem seems to be the statement "a party can not object as irrelevant without more".
Well, is there more if the objection contains; "not related to the claim".
So, is this the statement that puts the shoe on the other foot?
Does this statement put the burden of proof of relevance on the requester and require excruciating detail to prove relevance? The consensus seems to be, any request is relevant if it will lead to discoverable evidence or facts. And these cases are not going into the DETAILS of why the RFA's are relevant in their particular case. So, the question is if a person were to do a motion to determine sufficiency of responses without stating EXACTLY why the responses are relevant and merely stating that all RFA's are relevant, would they be wasting their time or would they be preserving their legal strategy? In regards to RFA's, is the responding party drawing a legal conclusion by responding with, "objection, not related to the claim"?