Williams v. Phillips Hospital Corporation et al
ORDER granting 21 separate Defendant Levy's Motion to Deem Admitted. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 01/24/2013. (kcs)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
AL M. WILLIAMS,
PHILLIPS HOSPITAL CORPORATION,
d/b/a Helena Regional Medical Center;
and DR. ARTHUR LEVY
Plaintiff, Al Williams, is a prisoner in the West Tennessee State Penitentiary.
He has filed this pro se diversity alleging that Defendants provided him with negligent
On November 26, 2012, separate Defendant Levy sent Plaintiff Requests for
Admission asking him to admit that “this is a cause of action for medical injury as
defined by Ark. Code. Ann § 16-114-201.” See docket entry #20, Ex. A. Defendant
Levy also asked Plaintiff to admit that he did not have a qualified physician to act as
a medical expert to testify regarding the allegations of negligence, the proximate cause
of his injury, and the applicable standard of care. Id.
On December 6, 2012, Plaintiff sent Defendant Levy an Answer stating that he
did “not have sufficient information or knowledge to respond” to the Requests for
Admissions. Id., Ex. B. Plaintiff also stated that the Requests for Admissions were
“denied” and “would be addressed by Plaintiff’s counsel.” Id. However, as of the
date of this Order, no attorney has entered an appearance on Plaintiff’s behalf.
On December 11, 2012, Defendant Levy sent Plaintiff a letter explaining that
his Answers to the Requests for Admission violated the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Id., Ex. C. In a good faith effort to resolve the matter, Defendant Levy
then gave Plaintiff an opportunity to file proper Answers. Id. Importantly, Defendant
Levy cautioned Plaintiff that he would ask the Court to deem his Request for
Admission admitted if Plaintiff did not file proper Answers. Plaintiff did not do so.
Thus, on January 4, 2013, Defendant Levy filed a Motion asking the Court to
deem his Requests for Admission to be admitted. See docket entry #19. Plaintiff has
not filed a Response to that Motion, and the time for doing so has expired. See Local
Rule 7.2(f) (providing that: “The failure to timely respond to any nondispositive
motion . . . shall be an adequate basis, without more, for granting the relief sought in
Further, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Answers clearly violated Fed. R. Civ.
P. 36. Within thirty days of receipt, Plaintiff was required to admit or deny each of
the Requests for Admission. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3). Clearly, Plaintiff knew at
that time whether he had found an expert to testify on his behalf, and he was required
to admit or deny that fact to Defendant Levy. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). (explaining
that a party “may assert lack of knowledge or information as a reason for failing to
admit or deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the
information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or
Finally, Plaintiff was notified by letter and Motion that his Answers were
improper and could be deemed admitted. Nevertheless, he failed to take any corrective
action. Accordingly, his Answers are deemed admitted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT separate Defendant Levy’s Motion to
Deem Admitted (docket entry #19) is GRANTED.
Dated this 24th day of January, 2013.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?