Rice et al v. Cornerstone Hospital of West Monroe L L C

Filing 85

ORDER denying as redundant 71 Motion to Have the Matters Subject of Cornerstone's Requests for Admission (Propounded on Minors CIR and GMR) Be Deemed Admitted. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Hayes on 8/17/15. (crt,Crawford, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
TOMMIE RICE AND PHYLLIS RICE
ON BEHALF OF THE MINORS, CIR
AND GMR

*

CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-0362

VERSUS

*

JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

CORNERSTONE HOSPITAL OF
WEST MONROE

*

MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES

ORDER
Before the court is a motion to deem certain facts admitted [doc. # 71] filed by defendant,
Cornerstone Hospital of West Monroe, L.L.C. (improperly sued as “Cornerstone Hospital of
West Monroe”) (hereinafter, “Cornerstone”). The motion is unopposed. For reasons stated
below, the motion is DENIED as redundant.1
Background
On November 13, 2013, Cornerstone propounded 21 requests for admission to the
minors, CIR and GMR, through their Next Friend Tommie Rice. (Requests for Admission to
CIR and GMR; M/Deem Facts Admitted, Exhs. 14 & 15). After one year passed without any
response(s) from plaintiff(s), defense counsel reached out to opposing counsel on multiple
occasions in an unsuccessful attempt to obtain the delinquent responses. See E-mails from Paul
Preston to Richard Fewell; M/Deem Admitted, Exh. 18. Cornerstone subsequently filed the

1

As this matter is not excepted within 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), nor dispositive of any
claim on the merits within the meaning of Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this
order is issued under the authority thereof, and in accordance with, the standing order of this
Court. Any appeal must be made to the district judge in accordance with Rule 72(a) and L.R.
74.1(W).

instant motion on July 22, 2015. Plaintiff did not file a response, and the time to do so has
lapsed. (Notice of Motion Setting [doc. # 72]. Thus, the motion is unopposed. Id.
Discussion
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 provides that,
[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. A shorter or longer
time for responding may be . . . ordered by the court.
FED. R. CIV. P. 36(a)(3).
Rule 36’s mandate is self-executing; in other words, a failure to answer or object to a
request for admission within thirty days—or within the time ordered by the court—constitutes an
automatic admission and a court order deeming the request admitted is unnecessary. See
Giovanni v. Cain, 2014 WL 2084895, at *2 (M.D. La. May 19, 2014) (citing cases).
Here, as noted above, plaintiff did not meet the December 13, 2013, deadline for
responding to the requests. At that point, defendant’s requests were deemed admitted as a matter
of law. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Cornerstone’s motion to deem certain facts admitted [doc. # 71] is
DENIED as redundant.
In Chambers, Monroe, Louisiana, this 17th day of August 2015.

__________________________________
KAREN L. HAYES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2