Hudson v. Town of Woodworth et al

Filing 43

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying as moot 36 Motion to Deem Admitted. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph H L Perez-Montes on 12/4/2017. (crt,Tice, Y)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
JEREMY HUDSON,
Plaintiff

d

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-00344

VERSUS
TOWN OF WOODWORTH, ET
AL., Defendants

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion to Deem Admitted (Doc. 36) filed by Defendant,
Town of Woodworth (the “Town”). The Town seeks an order deeming all requests for
admission propounded to Plaintiff, Jeremy Hudson, be deemed admitted for the
remainder of this proceeding.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3), “[a] matter is admitted unless, within 30 days
after being served, the party to whom the request is directed serves on the requesting
party a written answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party
or its attorney.”

Further, “[a] matter admitted under this rule is conclusively

established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or
amended.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b). The consequences of failing to respond can thus be
fatal to a claim: “[I]f the requests for admissions concern an essential issue, the failure
to respond to requests for admission can lead to a grant of summary judgment against
the non-responding party.” Murrell v. Casterline, 307 Fed.Appx. 778, 780 (5th Cir.
2008).

The mandate of Rule 36(a)(3) is self-executing. Zyzek v. Am. Sec. Ins. Co., CV
15-1891, 2015 WL 13035283, at *1 (W.D. La. Dec. 15, 2015). Once a party fails to
respond or object to a request for admission within 30 days (or any other time ordered
by the court), the request for admission is deemed admitted as a matter of law. See,
e.g., id. The burden then falls on the admitting party to move to withdraw or amend
the admission under Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b). See, e.g., Rivera v. Martin J. Donnelly
Antique Tools, CV 14-667-JWD-SCR, 2015 WL 6872506, at *1 n.2 (M.D. La. Nov. 9,
2015).
Here, Defendants served Hudson, through his attorney, with requests for
admission on September 18, 2017. (Doc. 36-4). Hudson neither responded to the
requests, nor sought an extension of the deadline to respond. As a matter of law,
Hudson’s failure to respond constituted admissions on October 18, 2017. An order
from this Court confirming the same is unnecessary. 1
Accordingly, the Motion to Deem Admitted (Doc. 36) is hereby DENIED as
moot.
4th
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Alexandria, Louisiana, this _____ day of
December, 2017.

__________________________________________
JOSEPH H.L. PEREZ-MONTES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Hudson’s attorney withdrew on September 22, 2017 (Doc. 34), four days after the Town propounded the requests for
admission. If something about that transition caused or contributed to Hudson’s failure to respond to the requests for
admission, or if Hudson has any other reasonable explanation for his failure to respond, Hudson’s recourse is to file a
motion to withdraw or amend his admissions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b), as noted above.

1

2