California Form DISC-030 is the official Judicial Council form titled Requests for Admission, and you fill it out by listing numbered statements of fact, the genuineness of documents, or the application of law to fact that you want the opposing party to either admit or deny in writing under oath. You complete the caption with your case information, attach the requests on the second page (or on plain paper that follows the same format), serve the form on the other party, and wait 30 days for a verified response under California Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.250.
Discovery is one of the most powerful, and most misused, tools in California civil litigation. According to the Judicial Council of California 2024 Court Statistics Report, more than 600,000 unlimited civil cases are filed each year, and a large share of those cases turn on admissions secured through DISC-030 long before trial. Filling the form out wrong can cost you the case, your fees, or your right to use the admissions later.
Here is what you will learn in this guide:
- 📝 How to complete every line of Judicial Council Form DISC-030 without leaving fatal gaps.
- ⚖️ Why CCP § 2033.010 limits what you can ask and how to draft within those limits.
- 🚨 The seven costliest mistakes that turn a winning request into a waiver or sanction.
- 💡 Three named-party scenarios showing how real plaintiffs and defendants use the form.
- 📬 The exact service, response, and meet-and-confer rules under CCP § 2033.290 and how to enforce them.
What Form DISC-030 Is and Why It Exists
Form DISC-030 is the standardized Requests for Admission form approved by the Judicial Council of California under California Rules of Court, Rule 1.31. The form lets one party send written statements to another party in a civil case and demand that the receiver admit or deny each statement under oath. Federal courts use a similar tool under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36, and California modeled its rules on that federal framework before expanding them in the Civil Discovery Act.
The plain-English purpose of DISC-030 is to narrow the case. By forcing the other side to commit to a position on a fact, the genuineness of a document, or how the law applies to a fact, you remove that issue from trial. The consequence of ignoring or sloppily answering a request is severe because under CCP § 2033.410, an admission is conclusively established against the admitting party for that case. A common misconception is that admissions feel like minor paperwork, but a single admitted request can decide a summary judgment motion, as the California Supreme Court emphasized in Murillo v. Superior Court (2006).
The Three Things You Can Ask For
There are exactly three categories of requests allowed on DISC-030 under CCP § 2033.010: the truth of specified facts, the application of law to fact, and the genuineness of described documents. You may not use DISC-030 to ask open-ended questions; those belong on Form DISC-001 (Form Interrogatories) or on Special Interrogatories using Form DISC-002. The consequence of mixing categories is that the responding party can object, and the court may strike the request, leaving you with no admission and possibly a sanctions order.
For example, if Maria Lopez sues ABC Trucking after a rear-end collision, she can ask the trucking company to admit that its driver was operating the truck in the course and scope of employment on the date of the crash. She cannot use DISC-030 to ask the company to describe its hiring practices, because that is an interrogatory question. The misconception that DISC-030 is a catch-all discovery tool causes many self-represented litigants to lose the chance to lock in key facts before trial.
Where DISC-030 Fits in the Discovery Toolbox
DISC-030 sits alongside Form Interrogatories (DISC-001), Special Interrogatories (DISC-002), and Demand for Genuineness of Documents (often used in tandem with DISC-030). The plain-English explanation is that interrogatories ask what happened, document demands ask for paper, and Requests for Admission ask the other side to agree that something is true. The consequence of confusing them is delay, because the responding party will object, force a meet-and-confer under CCP § 2016.040, and possibly trigger a motion to compel.
A real-world example involves David Chen, a tenant who sued his landlord under California’s habitability laws. David served Form Interrogatories to learn the inspection history of the building, served document demands for the inspection reports, and then served DISC-030 asking the landlord to admit the genuineness of those exact reports. That layered approach is the textbook method that the Rutter Group California Practice Guide on Civil Procedure Before Trial recommends.
Step-by-Step: Filling Out DISC-030 Line by Line
The form has two pages: a caption page with check-the-box options, and a continuation page where you list the actual numbered requests. The plain-English explanation is that the first page tells the court who is asking and who must answer, and the second page tells the responding party what to admit. The consequence of leaving any caption box blank is that the responding party can refuse to answer until you correct it, costing you days under the 30-day clock in CCP § 2033.250.
A real example: Sandra Patel, an employee suing her former employer for wage theft, served a DISC-030 with the asking-party box left empty. The defense responded with a general objection and refused to admit anything. Sandra had to re-serve and lost two weeks of discovery time. The misconception that the caption is “just paperwork” causes filers to skip the very fields that make the form enforceable.
Caption: Attorney or Party Without Attorney
In the top-left box, type your full name, State Bar number if you are an attorney, mailing address, telephone, fax (optional), and email address. The plain-English point is that the court and opposing counsel must know exactly where to send responses, motions, and meet-and-confer letters. The consequence of using an outdated address is that the responding party can serve objections to a stale address and still trigger the 30-day deadline against you under CCP § 1013.
A real-world example: Jorge Ramirez listed his old PO Box on his DISC-030. The defendant served a verified denial to the old address, and Jorge missed the deadline to move to compel further responses under CCP § 2033.290. The lesson is to update your address with the court using Form MC-040 before serving any discovery.
Caption: Court, Case Name, and Case Number
In the next box, write the superior court name (for example, “Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles”), then the short case caption (e.g., “Lopez v. ABC Trucking, Inc.”), then the case number exactly as it appears on the complaint. The plain-English explanation is that mismatched case numbers cause the clerk to reject filings and the responding party to claim improper service. The consequence is wasted time and possible loss of the entire request set if the trial date is near.
A common misconception is that you can abbreviate party names; you cannot, because California Rule of Court 2.111 requires the caption to match the complaint. Anita Brown, a contract plaintiff, abbreviated “Inc.” out of the defendant’s name and the court rejected her motion to compel because the caption did not match the complaint.
Set Number and Asking/Responding Party Boxes
The form requires you to identify the Set Number (First Set, Second Set, etc.), the Asking Party, the Responding Party, and the date the requests are served. The plain-English reason is that California treats each set as a separate discovery event, and the 35-request numerical limit under CCP § 2033.030 is counted across all sets unless you serve a Declaration for Additional Discovery using Form DISC-005.
The consequence of mislabeling a set is that the responding party can object on the ground that you have exceeded the numerical limit when in fact you have not, forcing a meet-and-confer. Kevin Wu, a personal injury defendant, labeled two sets as “Set One” and the plaintiff filed a motion to strike; the judge granted the motion. The misconception that set numbering is cosmetic costs litigants real money in motion practice.
Drafting the Numbered Requests
Each request must be discrete, complete, and stated separately under CCP § 2033.060. The plain-English rule is one fact per request. The consequence of a compound request is a partial denial that gives you nothing, because the responding party can deny the entire request based on a single false sub-part. A common misconception is that broader requests are more powerful; the opposite is true, as the appellate court explained in St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014).
A clean example is: “Admit that on June 1, 2025, you operated a 2022 Freightliner truck on northbound Interstate 5 in Kern County.” That single sentence forces a yes or no. A bad example is: “Admit that you were driving carelessly and caused the crash and were on the job.” That request gets denied in full because it bundles multiple disputed facts.
Three Real-World Scenarios
The three most common DISC-030 scenarios in California civil practice are the auto accident admission, the contract authenticity admission, and the application-of-law admission in employment cases. Each scenario shows how the request maps to the response, and what happens when the responding party gets it wrong under CCP § 2033.420, which allows cost-of-proof sanctions.
Scenario 1: Auto Accident Liability
| Request Drafted | Likely Outcome at Trial |
|---|---|
| “Admit that on June 1, 2025, your driver, John Smith, was operating the truck within the course and scope of his employment with ABC Trucking, Inc.” | If admitted, vicarious liability is conclusively established under Hinman v. Westinghouse (1970); if denied without basis, plaintiff can recover proof costs under CCP § 2033.420. |
Scenario 2: Contract Authenticity
| Request Drafted | Likely Outcome at Trial |
|---|---|
| “Admit that the document attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the written agreement signed by you on March 15, 2024.” | If admitted, the contract is authenticated and admissible without a custodian under Evidence Code § 1400; if denied falsely, plaintiff can recover the cost of subpoenaing a custodian. |
Scenario 3: Application of Law to Fact in Wage Cases
| Request Drafted | Likely Outcome at Trial |
|---|---|
| “Admit that during 2024 you classified the plaintiff as an independent contractor rather than an employee for purposes of California wage and hour law.” | A clean admission triggers the Dynamex ABC test and Labor Code § 2775 analysis, often setting up summary adjudication. |
Service, Timing, and Verification
You must serve DISC-030 on every party that has appeared, and you must wait at least 10 days after the defendant’s appearance under CCP § 2030.020 before serving any discovery (the same window applies to admissions). The plain-English point is that you cannot ambush a newly served defendant with admissions on day one. The consequence is that requests served too early are void, and the responding party can ignore them with no penalty.
A real-world example: Priya Shah served DISC-030 the same day the defendant filed an answer. The defendant did nothing, and when Priya moved to compel, the judge denied the motion because the requests were premature. The misconception that “filed answer equals open discovery” causes early-stage litigants to waste their first set.
The 30-Day Response Window
The responding party has 30 days from service, plus 5 calendar days if served by mail within California under CCP § 1013(a), or 2 court days if served electronically under CCP § 1010.6. The plain-English rule is count carefully, count twice. The consequence of miscounting is enormous because if the responding party fails to serve a verified response in time, the requesting party can move under CCP § 2033.280 to have the matters deemed admitted.
The California Supreme Court in Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) confirmed that a late but served-before-hearing response that complies substantially with CCP § 2033.220 defeats a deemed-admitted motion. The misconception that “late equals admitted” is wrong, but only if the responding party rushes a compliant verified answer in before the hearing.
Verification Requirements
Every response must be verified by the responding party under penalty of perjury per CCP § 2033.240. The plain-English explanation is that an attorney’s signature alone is not enough; the party must sign the verification. The consequence of an unverified response is that it is treated as no response at all, as the court held in Appleton v. Superior Court (1988).
The 35-Request Numerical Limit and How to Exceed It
CCP § 2033.030 caps unlimited civil cases at 35 requests for admission, except that requests for the genuineness of documents are not capped. The plain-English rule is fact and law-application requests count toward 35; document genuineness requests do not. The consequence of exceeding 35 without a supporting declaration is that the entire excess set is voidable, and the responding party can ignore everything past number 35.
To exceed the limit, you must serve a Declaration for Additional Discovery (DISC-005) with the requests, explaining why the case justifies more under the factors in CCP § 2033.040. A real example: in a complex construction defect case, Lila Park’s attorney served 60 requests with a DISC-005 declaration citing 14 defendants and 200 alleged defects. The court allowed all 60. Without the declaration, the requests above 35 would have been struck.
Limited Civil Cases Have Lower Caps
In limited civil cases (under \$35,000 in controversy), the cap drops to 35 across all discovery combined under CCP § 94. The plain-English point is that limited civil litigants must budget their requests across interrogatories, document demands, and admissions together. The consequence of forgetting this rule is a quick objection and a wasted set. The misconception that “35 requests for admission plus 35 interrogatories” is allowed in limited civil is flatly wrong.
How to Respond to DISC-030 You Receive
If you are on the receiving end, you have four options for each request: admit, deny, admit in part and deny in part, or state that you lack sufficient information to admit or deny after reasonable inquiry under CCP § 2033.220. The plain-English rule is that the “lack of information” answer requires you to actually make a reasonable inquiry, not just shrug.
The consequence of an evasive answer is that the requesting party can move to compel a further response under CCP § 2033.290 within 45 days of service of the verified response. A real example: Marcus Bell, a defendant in a slip-and-fall case, answered “Defendant lacks sufficient information” without checking his own incident report. The judge ordered further responses and imposed \$1,500 in monetary sanctions.
Objections That Actually Work
Valid objections include privilege, vagueness, compound construction, and that the request improperly seeks a legal conclusion not tied to fact, as discussed in Burke v. Superior Court (1969). The plain-English rule is that you must state the specific ground; “objection, overbroad” alone is not enough. The consequence of a boilerplate objection is waiver, and the requesting party can bring the boilerplate straight to the judge in a motion to compel.
A common misconception is that attorney-client privilege blocks admissions; it does not block the admission itself, only the disclosure of communications. Elena Garcia, a defense lawyer, learned this when her privilege objection to “Admit you were at the scene” was overruled and her client’s request was deemed admitted.
Cost-of-Proof Sanctions for Wrongful Denials
Under CCP § 2033.420, if a party denies a request and the requesting party later proves the matter at trial, the requesting party can recover reasonable attorney fees and costs of proving that fact. The plain-English explanation is that bad-faith denials cost real money. The consequence in Wimberly v. Derby Cycle Corp. (1997) was a \$48,000 fee award after the defense denied an obviously true product-defect fact.
Mistakes to Avoid
Avoiding common errors is the difference between a clean admission and a sanctions hearing. The plain-English point is that DISC-030 punishes carelessness on both sides, and California courts have made the consequences explicit in cases like New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008). The misconception that “the judge will give me a break” is wrong; sanctions under CCP § 2023.030 are mandatory in many circumstances.
- Compound requests. Bundling two facts into one request lets the responder deny the whole thing.
- No verification. An unverified response is no response, and the requester can move to deem admitted.
- Wrong service method. Serving by email without consent under CCP § 1010.6 voids service.
- Exceeding 35 without DISC-005. The excess requests are unenforceable.
- Mismatched caption. The clerk and the opposing party can both reject filings.
- Late motion to compel. Missing the 45-day window in CCP § 2033.290 waives the motion.
- Boilerplate objections. Courts treat them as waiver.
- Asking for pure legal conclusions. Requests must tie law to facts of the case.
- Forgetting the meet-and-confer. A motion to compel without a real meet-and-confer fails.
- Failing to update admissions. If new evidence proves your denial wrong, amend under CCP § 2033.300 or face cost-of-proof sanctions.
Do’s and Don’ts
The following list reflects best practices drawn from the California Civil Discovery Act and the California Courts Self-Help Center. Each item carries a plain-English reason because following the rule mechanically is not enough.
Do’s – Do number each request consecutively, because CCP § 2033.060 requires it and clerks reject sets without numbering. – Do attach a proof of service using Form POS-030, because service must be provable. – Do keep a calendar of the 30-day, 45-day, and 5-day mail rules, because deadlines drive everything. – Do use clear single-fact statements, because compound requests get denied wholesale. – Do attach exhibits when asking about document genuineness, because the responder needs to see the document to admit it.
Don’ts – Don’t ask for legal conclusions divorced from facts, because the request will be objectionable. – Don’t serve before the 10-day window, because early service is void. – Don’t skip the verification, because an unverified set is treated as no response. – Don’t file the requests with the court unless ordered, because California Rule of Court 3.250 bars filing discovery. – Don’t miss the 45-day motion-to-compel window, because the right is lost.
Pros and Cons of Using DISC-030
DISC-030 is a powerful tool, but it is not always the right tool. The plain-English explanation is that admissions reduce trial issues but also tip your hand to the other side. The consequence of overusing the form is a roadmap for the defense; the consequence of underusing it is unnecessary trial cost.
Pros – Conclusively establishes facts under CCP § 2033.410, removing them from trial. – Recovers fees through cost-of-proof sanctions under CCP § 2033.420. – Authenticates documents without trial-time custodians under Evidence Code § 1400. – Sets up summary judgment by locking in undisputed facts under CCP § 437c. – Cheap to draft compared to depositions or expert discovery.
Cons – Telegraphs trial strategy to the opposing side. – Capped at 35 in unlimited civil without a DISC-005 declaration. – Requires precise drafting or the request fails. – Triggers meet-and-confer obligations that consume time. – Creates appellate risk if the trial court misapplies the deemed-admitted rule, as in St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014).
Court Rulings Every DISC-030 User Should Know
California appellate courts have repeatedly shaped DISC-030 practice. The plain-English point is that the statute is only half the story; the cases tell you how judges actually rule. The consequence of ignoring the case law is that your motion may track the statute and still lose.
In Wimberly v. Derby Cycle Corp. (1997), the Court of Appeal upheld a six-figure fee award against a defendant that denied an obvious product-defect fact. In St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014), the court emphasized the strict 30-day verification rule. In Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999), the California Supreme Court allowed late but compliant responses to defeat a deemed-admitted motion. The misconception that admissions practice is mechanical disappears once you read these cases.
Federal vs. California Admissions Practice
Federal civil practice uses FRCP 36, which has no numerical cap and a similar 30-day response window. The plain-English contrast is that California is more structured, with mandatory forms, set numbering, and the 35-request cap. The consequence of treating California like federal practice is missed deadlines and stricken requests.
| Feature | California (DISC-030) | Federal (FRCP 36) |
|---|---|---|
| Numerical cap | 35 fact/law-application requests under CCP § 2033.030 | No cap, but proportionality applies under FRCP 26(b)(1) |
| Response window | 30 days plus mail/electronic extensions | 30 days, no party-served extensions without stipulation |
| Verification | Required by party under CCP § 2033.240 | Not required; counsel signature suffices |
| Cost-of-proof sanctions | Mandatory under CCP § 2033.420 absent good cause | Available under FRCP 37(c)(2) |
Filing Fees and Practical Costs
There is no separate filing fee for DISC-030 because California discovery is not filed with the court under California Rule of Court 3.250. The plain-English point is that you serve the form and keep the original until the court asks for it. The consequence of accidentally filing it is that the clerk may reject the entire packet and the original may be lost.
Practical costs include postage or e-service fees on platforms like One Legal or File & ServeXpress, and attorney drafting time. As of 2026, court filing fees in unlimited civil cases remain governed by Government Code § 70611, but those fees apply to motions, not to discovery service.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I file Form DISC-030 with the California court clerk?
No. California Rule of Court 3.250 bars filing routine discovery. You serve DISC-030 on the other parties and keep the original until the court orders production for a motion or trial.
Is there a fee to serve DISC-030?
No. California does not charge a court fee to serve discovery. Your only out-of-pocket costs are postage, e-service vendor fees, or process-server charges, plus attorney drafting time if you hire counsel.
Can I serve DISC-030 by email?
Yes. Electronic service is allowed under CCP § 1010.6 when the receiving party has consented or when the court has ordered e-service in the case.
Are there really only 35 requests allowed?
Yes. Under CCP § 2033.030 the cap is 35 fact and law-application requests in unlimited civil; document-genuineness requests are uncapped, and you can exceed 35 with a DISC-005 declaration.
Do I have to verify my responses to DISC-030?
Yes. CCP § 2033.240 requires the party (not the attorney) to sign a verification under penalty of perjury, and an unverified response is treated as no response at all.
Can the court deem matters admitted if my response is one day late?
No. Under Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999), a late but substantially compliant verified response served before the deemed-admitted hearing defeats the motion, though monetary sanctions still apply.
Can I withdraw an admission once made?
Yes. CCP § 2033.300 lets a party move to withdraw or amend an admission on a showing of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, if doing so will not prejudice the other side.
Do DISC-030 admissions apply in other lawsuits?
No. Under CCP § 2033.410(b), an admission is binding only in the pending action and is not admissible against the party in any other proceeding.
Can I use DISC-030 in small claims court?
No. Small claims court has no formal discovery under CCP § 116.310, so DISC-030 is unavailable; it is reserved for limited and unlimited civil cases.
Is meet-and-confer required before a motion to compel further responses?
Yes. CCP § 2033.290(b) requires a declaration showing a reasonable and good-faith attempt to resolve the dispute informally before filing the motion.
Can a self-represented litigant fill out DISC-030 alone?
Yes. The California Courts Self-Help Center provides instructions, and pro per litigants regularly serve DISC-030 successfully when they follow the form, the 30-day rule, and the 35-request cap.
Will denying a true fact really cost me attorney fees?
Yes. CCP § 2033.420 authorizes mandatory cost-of-proof sanctions, as enforced in Wimberly v. Derby Cycle Corp. (1997), where the court awarded tens of thousands of dollars.
Related reading
- How to Fill Out California Form CIV-120 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form DISC-001 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form DISC-002 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form DISC-003 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form DISC-005 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form DISC-020 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form CIV-010 (w/Examples) + FAQs