When a party fails to answer a request for admissions, the matters therein are deemed admitted. Tex. R. Civ. P. 198.2(c); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Deggs, 968 S.W.2d 354, 355 (Tex. 1998). Such admissions are "conclusively established as to the party making the admission unless the court permits the party to withdraw or amend the admission."
Withdrawal or amendment of an admission is permitted on a showing of good cause and a finding by the trial court that (1) the party relying on the deemed admission will not be unduly prejudiced, and (2) presentation of the merits of the action will be served thereby. Tex.R.Civ.P. 198.3; Wal-MartStores, Inc. v. Deggs, 968 S.W.2d 354, 356 (Tex. 1998); Stelly, 927 S.W.2d at 622. "`Good cause' is established when the failure to respond is accidental or the result of mistake, rather than intentional or the result of conscious indifference."
The State responds that Alexander failed to demonstrate good cause for his failure to timely respond to the requested discovery and that Alexander's uncorroborated and refutable claim to ownership of the property is not sufficient to set aside his deemed admissions. When a party fails to properly answer a request for admissions, the matters therein are deemed admitted as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 198.2(c); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Deggs, 968 S.W.2d 354, 355 (Tex. 1998). The trial court does not have discretion to refuse to deem the requests admitted.
"'Good cause' is established when the failure to respond is accidental or the result of a mistake, rather than intentional or the result of conscious indifference." Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Deggs, 968 S.W.2d 354, 356 (Tex. 1998); see Wheeler, 157 S.W.3d at 442. A clerical error, including a calendaring error, is "sufficient to establish good cause for a failure to timely respond to a request for admission, even if a party is negligent, as long as the party's negligence does not rise to the level of conscious indifference."
“Undue prejudice depends on whether withdrawing an admission or filing a late response will delay trial or significantly hamper the opposing party's ability to prepare for it.” Wheeler, 157 S.W.3d at 443 (citing Carpenter v. Cimarron Hydrocarbons Corp., 98 S.W.3d 682, 687 (Tex.2002)); Stelly, 927 S.W.2d at 622; see alsoWal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. Deggs, 968 S.W.2d 354, 357 (Tex.1998) (per curiam) (finding no undue prejudice from withdrawal of deemed admissions where plaintiff had already deposed withdrawing party). Finally, “[t]he burden of proof on all three requirements [of Rule 198.3] is on the party seeking withdrawal.”
TEX. R. CIV. P. 198.2, 198.3; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., v. Deggs, 968 S.W.2d 354, 355 (Tex. 1998). Withdrawal or amendment of an admission is permitted on a showing of good cause and a finding by the trial court that (1) the party relying on the deemed admission will not be unduly prejudiced, and (2) presentation of the merits of the action will be served thereby.
If the opposing party does not serve its responses to the admissions requests within that time period, the matters in the requests are deemed admitted against that party without the necessity of a court order. TEX. R. CIV. P. 198.2(c); see Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Deggs, 968 S.W.2d 354, 355 (Tex. 1998) (per curiam). Any matter admitted or deemed admitted is conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission.
TEX. R. CIV. P. 198.2; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., v. Deggs, 968 S.W.2d 354, 355 (Tex. 1998). A matter admitted is conclusively established unless the trial court permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission.
TEX. R. CIV. P. 198.2; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., v. Deggs, 968 S.W.2d 354, 355 (Tex. 1998). Any matter deemed admitted is conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission.
TEX. R. CIV. P. 198.2, 198.3; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., v. Deggs, 968 S.W.2d 354, 355 (Tex. 1998); Boulet v. State, 189 S.W.3d 833, 836 (Tex. App.-Houston 2006, no pet.).