Rule 37(c) sanctions: Which of the following is a basis to avoid sanctions?

• A. The request was objectionable
• B. The admission was of substantial importance
• C. The party had no reason to justify the failure
• D. The court orders discovery stay

Answer: (A)

The rule works by looking at why the party failed to disclose or respond. If the discovery request itself was objectionable, a proper objection can justify not supplying the information, so sanctions under Rule 37(c) aren’t appropriate. In other words, when the request is invalid, the party isn’t penalized for not complying with it.

The idea that the admission was of substantial importance doesn’t excuse not complying with a discovery obligation. The lack of a justification isn’t a defense either—sanctions are intended to penalize failure to disclose unless there’s a valid reason. A court-ordered discovery stay can pause obligations, but the core takeaway is that a legitimate objection to the request itself provides a clear basis to avoid sanctions.