Short answer. Yes, potentially. Section 5 bars a party who fails to file and serve a request for admission on material and relevant facts within the adverse party's personal knowledge from later presenting evidence on those facts — unless the court allows it for good cause shown and to prevent a failure of justice.
What the law says
Unless otherwise allowed by the court for good cause shown and to prevent a failure of justice, a party who fails to file and serve a request for admission on the adverse party of material and relevant facts at issue which are, or ought to be, within the personal knowledge of the latter, shall not be permitted to present evidence on such facts.
Rule 26, Section 5 — Effect of failure to file and serve request for admission. Read the full provision →
What triggers the bar
The failure specifically concerns facts that are, or ought to be, within the adverse party's own personal knowledge — precisely the category of facts a request for admission is designed to pin down early in the case. Facts outside the adverse party's own knowledge, or that are genuinely disputed rather than simply known to one side, are not what this particular statutory bar is aimed at.
The consequence
A party who skipped this step may be barred from presenting evidence on those facts, a significant restriction since it can effectively remove proof of key issues from what can be argued at trial, even where the party otherwise has the witnesses or documents needed to prove those facts convincingly, and even where the opposing party never actually disputed them in the first place.
The escape hatch mirrors the interrogatories rule
The court can still allow the evidence despite the omission, but only for good cause shown and to prevent a failure of justice, the same demanding standard applied when a party skips serving written interrogatories under Rule 25. A party seeking this exception should be ready to explain specifically why the omission happened and why excluding the evidence would produce a genuinely unjust result.
Why this matters
It creates a real incentive to use requests for admission proactively rather than treating them as optional, since skipping them risks losing the ability to prove facts the other side could easily have been asked to admit or deny. Counsel preparing for trial should treat this bar as a reason to review, early in the case, which key facts sit within the adverse party's own knowledge and genuinely warrant a formal request for admission. This means the bar is not automatic once the deadline for serving requests has passed; a party who can show a legitimate reason for the omission, and that fairness genuinely requires letting the evidence in, is not left permanently locked out simply because they missed the earlier opportunity.
Related provisions
- Rule 26, Section 5 — Effect of failure to file and serve request for admission
- Rule 26, Section 1 — Request for admission