Morgan v. Wesley Medical Center, LLC et al

Filing 363

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 356 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale on 7/25/19. (df)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
D.M., a minor, by and through
)
his next friend and natural guardian, )
KELLI MORGAN,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
WESLEY MEDICAL CENTER LLC )
d/b/a WESLEY MEDICAL
)
CENTER-WOODLAWN, et al.,
)
)
Defendants. )
_______________________________)

Case No.: 18-2158-KHV-KGG

MEMORANDUM & ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL
Now before the Court is “Motion to Compel Answers to Requests for
Admissions” filed by Defendant Wesley Medical Center (hereinafter “Defendant”).
(Doc. 356.) Having reviewed the submissions of the parties, the Court GRANTS
Defendant’s motion.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, through his natural guardian and next friend, filed his federal court
Complaint on April 9, 2018, alleging claims under Kansas medical malpractice
laws and under the Federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.
The claims result from the medical care he received on March 5 and 6, 2017.
Plaintiff alleges that on March 6, 2017, he “suffered a catastrophic and medically1 

preventable stroke that left him with right-side paralysis, neurological damage and
other debilitating physical injuries that permanently changed his and his parents’
lives.” (Doc. 1, at 5.)
The Requests for Admission (“RFAs”) at issue in this case were served by
Defendant on April 29, 2019. (Doc. 325.) The Scheduling Order in effect in this
case listed a deadline of March 31, 2020, for “[a]ll discovery in this case [to] be
commenced or served in time to be completed” and a separate, earlier deadline of
April 29, 2019, for the completion of “fact discovery.” (See Doc. 94, at 3; Doc.
287, text entry, extending fact discovery deadline by agreement of the parties.) As
such, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s requests “were late because the [responses
to the] RFAs would not be due until 30 days after this Court’s deadline to complete
fact discovery.” (Doc. 358, at 1.)
Defendant, on the other hand, argues that RFAs are not subject to the fact
discovery deadline. Defendant quotes language from a prior Order in this case in
which the undersigned Magistrate Judge stated that RFAs are “are ‘not [intended]
to discover additional information concerning the subject of the request, but to
force the opposing party to formally admit the truth of certain facts, thus allowing
the requesting party to avoid potential problems of proof.’” Morgan v. Wesley
Med. Ctr. LLC, No. 18-2158-KHV, KGG, 2019 WL 2067363 at *2 (D. Kan. May
9, 2019) (internal citation omitted)). Defendant continues that
2 

[t]he discovery deadline is March 31, 2020. Pretrial
conference is set for April 7, 2020. See Doc. 94. It does
not make sense to enforce the ‘fact discovery’ deadline
against Wesley’s RFAs. A party may not know until the
end of ‘fact’ discovery what issues can be narrowed.
Waiting until after fact discovery closes gives both the
requesting party and the responding party the advantage
of knowing all the facts before attempting to narrow the
issues. But if RFAs are subjected to the fact discovery
deadline, the parties cannot wait until all the facts of the
case are fleshed out before drafting and answering RFAs.
(Doc. 362, at 2.)
Plaintiff relies on the decision by Judge Waxse in Epling v. UCB Films,
Inc., 2000 WL 1466216 at *24 (D. Kan. Aug. 7, 2000) wherein Judge Waxse held
that “case law holds that requests for admissions are a form of discovery and
therefore subject to the discovery cut-off.” (See Doc. 358, at 2.) Defendant replies
that the Epling decision is distinguishable because Judge Waxse was applying the
“all discovery” deadline, not a “fact discovery deadline.” (Doc. 362, at 3 (quoting
Epling, 2000 WL 1466216 at *24 (“The Scheduling Orders in both cases state that
‘[a]ll discovery shall be completed ... on or before June 15, 1999’”).) As
Defendant correctly asserts, in the present case, it is uncontroverted that the “all
discovery” deadline is “months into the future.” (Doc. 362, at 3.) Defendant also
points to a decision from Judge Robinson wherein she found that “in cases where
the deadline for discovery would expire before a party would be required to
respond to a request for admission, courts have required the request for admission
3 

to be answered.” Nielander v. Board of Co. Comm’rs of Co. of Republic, Kansas,
No. 06-2013-JAR, 2007 WL 4561541 at *1 (D. Kan. Dec. 21, 2007) (citing Banks
v. Office of Senate Sergeant-at-Arms, 222 F.R.D. 7, 17 (D. D.C. 2004) (admission
would be due two days after expiration of discovery deadline) and Leach v.
Quality Health Serv., Inc., 162 F.R.D. 40, 42 (E.D. Pa. 1995) (admission due after
two and one-half weeks after discovery deadline)). Thus, according to Defendant,
even if its RFAs were subject to the “fact discovery” deadline, Plaintiff should be
compelled to answer them.
The Court is persuaded by Defendant’s argument that in the present situation
– where there are separate discovery deadlines for “fact discovery” and “all
discovery” – waiting until the close of fact discovery “gives both the requesting
party and the responding party the advantage of knowing all the facts before
attempting to narrow the issues.” (Doc. 362, at 2.) Further, even assuming the
RFAs at issue are “fact” discovery and subject to the expired fact discovery
deadline, the deadline for “all discovery” in this case is not until next year.
Plaintiff will not be unduly prejudiced by being compelled to respond.
Defendant’s motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff is instructed to respond to
Defendant’s RFAs within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.

4 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Compel
(Doc. 356) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 25th day of July, 2019, at Wichita, Kansas.
S/ KENNETH G. GALE

HON. KENNETH G. GALE
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5