Hacker v. Cain et al
Filing
116
RULING granting 71 Motion to Determine the Sufficiency of Responses to Requests for Admissions. Plaintiff's Request for Admission Numbers 1 and 2 through 25, propounded as Plaintiff's First Request for Admissions Directed to Defendant James LeBlanc on 4/19/2015, are each deemed admitted under Rule 36(a)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P. Plaintiff is awarded reasonable expenses in the amount of $300, to be paid by the defendant within 14 days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 8/27/2015. (LLH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JASON HACKER
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 14-63-JWD-SCR
N. BURL CAIN, ET AL
RULING ON MOTION TO DETERMINE THE SUFFICIENCY OF
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
Before the court is the Plaintiff’s Motion to Determine the
Sufficiency of Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for
Admissions.
Record document number 71.
No opposition has been
filed.
This motion arises out of the April 19, 2015 requests for
admission served by plaintiff on defendant James LeBlanc, Secretary
of the Department of Corrections and Public Safety.1
Along with
the requests for admission, the plaintiff provided two exhibits,
one consisting of three pages of correspondence and the other 79
pages of medical records.2
the
requests
for
Plaintiff stated that the purpose of
admission
were
not
only
to
establish
the
authenticity of the documents, but to also establish facts related
to the plaintiff’s condition, diagnosis, recommendations/dates for
1
Record document number 71-2, Exhibit A, Plaintiff’s First
Request for Admissions Directed to Defendant James LeBlanc.
2
Record document numbers 71-3, Exhibit B; record document
number 71-4, Exhibits C.
surgery,
and
whether
the
State
of
Louisiana,
the
Louisiana
Department of Public Safety and Corrections and Louisiana State
Penitentiary receive federal funds.
Plaintiff acknowledged that
the defendant admitted Request for Admission No. 2.
rest,
the
plaintiff
essentially
argued
that
responses failed to comply with Rule 36(a)(4).3
As to the
the
defendant’s
Therefore, either
the defendant should be ordered to provide proper answers or the
requests should be deemed admitted.
Plaintiff failed to explain why requests for admission were
needed to authenticate documents, when it is obvious that the
correspondence
and
medical
records
certified true and correct copies.4
he
received
are
already
Nevertheless, the plaintiff’s
arguments with regard to the defendant’s answers to the requests
for admission have merit.
Given the substance of the admissions
propounded, and the defendant’s lack of response to this motion,
there is no good reason why the defendant could not admit or deny
each of the requests as required by Rule 36(a)(4).5
In these
circumstances no useful purpose would be served by ordering the
defendant to serve amended answers.
order
that
the
matters
covered
The appropriate remedy is to
by
plaintiff’s
Requests
for
3
4
Record document number 71-3, p. 1; record document number
71-4, p. 1.
5
Record document number 71-5, Exhibit D, Defendant James
LeBlanc’s Response to Plaintiff’s First Request for Admissions.
2
Admissions 1 and 3 through 25 are deemed admitted.
Pursuant to Rule 36(a)(6), which incorporates Rule 37(a)(5),
the plaintiff is awarded the reasonable expenses incurred in
connection with the motion, in the amount of $300.
Accordingly,
the
Plaintiff’s
Motion
to
Determine
the
Sufficiency of Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for
Admissions is granted.
Plaintiff’s Request for Admission Numbers
1 and 2 through 25, propounded as Plaintiff’s First Request for
Admissions Directed to Defendant James LeBlanc on April 19, 2015,
are
each
deemed
admitted
under
Rule
36(a)(6),
Fed.R.Civ.P.
Plaintiff is awarded reasonable expenses in the amount of $300, to
be paid by the defendant within 14 days.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, August 27, 2015.
STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3
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?