Don’t Let the Document "Speak for Itself": Lessons from Lorenz v. Parker

Before the Super Bowl, there are preseason drills; before the masterpiece, there are endless sketches. And before the trial, there is discovery. It is in these detailed, often overlooked moments that cases are won or lost. The unglamorous grind of preparation lays the foundation for victory when the spotlight is on.

When a litigator is served with a mountain of discovery requests, it can be easy to focus on gathering documents or crafting precise answers to interrogatories. Because requests for admission (RFAs) require far less legwork, they can appear deceptively simple. But with just a few words, RFAs can either streamline a case or set the stage for an evidentiary disaster.

That is precisely what happened to the sisters in the case of Lorenz v. Parker: a contested paternity claim with estate rights hanging in the balance. As the appellate court highlighted, one ambiguous response—“the document speaks for itself”—spoke volumes about the dangers of imprecision. This case reminds us that when it comes to RFAs, every word counts, and silence can sometimes be louder than a clear denial.

The Case in Brief

Lorenz v. Parker began with a contested estate claim. Rachel Wetzel Parker sought to establish that she was the biological daughter of the decedent, Clayton Paul Givens, and therefore entitled to inherit his estate. Contesting this assertion were Givens’ sisters. Among Parker’s evidence was a DNA test report showing a 99.9997% probability that Givens was her father. To streamline authentication of this document for trial, Parker sent an RFA to the plaintiffs asking them to admit the report’s authenticity and admissibility.

Rather than objecting or denying the request, the plaintiffs responded with the oft-used, “the document speaks for itself.” At trial, Parker argued this response amounted to an admission under Rule 4:11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia. The trial court agreed, admitting the DNA report into evidence over the plaintiffs’ objections.

The Rule 4:11 Angle

Rule 4:11 plays a pivotal role in Virginia litigation by allowing parties to narrow the issues for trial. Under the rule, a party may request an opposing party to admit or deny facts or documents central to the case. If a party fails to admit, deny, or object to the request with specificity, the matter is deemed admitted.

The trial court held that the plaintiffs’ vague response—failing to deny or explain their position—amounted to an admission. On appeal, the appellate court, bound by the deferential “abuse of discretion” standard of review, affirmed this decision. Rule 4:11’s purpose, the court emphasized, is to streamline litigation, and ambiguous responses only undermine that efficiency.

What Went Wrong for the Plaintiffs

The plaintiffs’ missteps in Lorenz highlight a fundamental misunderstanding of how Rule 4:11 operates:

• Noncommittal Responses Don’t Cut It: By stating “the document speaks for itself,” the plaintiffs failed to admit, deny, or object, allowing the trial court to treat the response as an admission.
• Failure to Amend: The plaintiffs later tried to deny the report’s accuracy and authenticity in supplemental responses but failed to seek court approval to amend their original responses. By the time they raised the issue at trial, it was too late.
• Overlooking the Big Picture: This procedural lapse effectively removed one of their strongest challenges to Parker’s evidence, allowing the DNA report to become a cornerstone of the court’s ruling.

The Takeaways for Litigators

Lorenz v. Parker underscores key lessons for litigators:

• Clarity is Crucial: Avoid ambiguous responses to RFAs. Either admit, deny, or provide a clear explanation for why you cannot fully admit or deny.
• Don’t Delay Corrections: If you realize a response is incomplete or inaccurate, promptly seek leave to amend. Courts are more likely to allow amendments if requested early and in good faith. In Lorenz, the plaintiffs’ failure to act until trial was too late to correct the issue.
• Think Strategically: RFAs aren’t mere procedural housekeeping. How you respond can significantly shape the admissibility of evidence and the overall trajectory of the case.

The lessons of Lorenz extend far beyond paternity disputes. RFAs are a powerful tool in all types of litigation, from breach of contract to personal injury cases. Precision—or lack thereof—in responding to RFAs can tip the scales of a case. As Lorenz illustrates, RFAs are not the place for shortcuts or hedging.

In the high-stakes world of litigation, it’s often the smallest missteps that lead to the biggest consequences. Lorenz v. Parker serves as a reminder that the devil truly is in the details—and in discovery, every detail matters.

Subscribe now to receive the latest insights from our Appellate Team. 

If you have any questions about this post or other appellate issues, please contact a member of our Appellate Team.