Davis v. MacIntyre et al

Filing 61

Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered denying 32 motion for summary judgment and granting 51 motion for leave to withdraw admissions. (Cicolini, Pietro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
_______________________________________
)
E. VICTORIA DAVIS,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
Civil No.
v.
)
13-10821-FDS
)
DEREK MACINTYRE and KEYLN
)
HARRELL, in personam, and UNNAMED )
VESSEL (MS1984DM)(HIN:
)
MRKA0048K788), in rem,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS
SAYLOR, J.
This is an action arising out of a boating accident on the Ipswich River. Plaintiff E.
Victoria Davis contends that defendants Derek MacIntyre and Kelyn Harrell caused a collision
between their boat and the boat Davis was operating, resulting in serious injury to her. The
complaint asserts claims of negligence against all three defendants and gross negligence against
defendants MacIntyre and Harrell.
On August 12 and September 16, 2013, Davis served requests for admissions on
MacIntyre and Harrell. MacIntyre and Harrell failed to respond to those requests. Pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3), that failure resulted in the matters set forth in the request. At the time,
defendants were represented by counsel.1
On January 16, 2014, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, largely on the basis of the

1

Counsel later withdrew (on October 28, 2013) and defendants proceeded pro se for a period of time.

facts deemed admitted because of defendants’ failure to respond. Defendants then secured new
counsel, who entered appearances on February 3 and 4, 2014. On February 21, 2014, counsel
filed an opposition to the motion for summary judgment and moved for leave to withdraw the
admissions. On March 21, 2013, the Court heard oral argument on the motions.
I.

Motion for Leave to Withdraw Admissions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b) permits the withdrawal of admissions “if it would promote the

presentation of the merits of the action and if the court is not persuaded that it would prejudice
the requesting party in maintaining or defending the action on the merits.” Prior to the time of
trial, this standard is “permissive.” Brook Vill. N. Associates v. Gen. Elec. Co., 686 F.2d 66, 70,
73 (1st Cir. 1982).
Under the circumstances presented here, the Court will permit the admissions to be
withdrawn. The Court is not convinced that any serious prejudice will result, and allowing
withdrawal will permit resolution of the case on the merits.
First, withdrawal would not prejudice plaintiff. Certainly, the case will take longer to
resolve and the parties will incur the costs of additional discovery that would be unnecessary if
the facts were not admitted. But plaintiff filed her complaint less than one year ago and the case
is therefore at a relatively early stage. Moreover, the discovery costs would have been incurred
anyway, and should be relatively low, given that witnesses are local and located in the same
general area.
Second, withdrawal of the admissions will promote the presentation of the merits of the
action. Currently, defendants are deemed to have admitted to full liability for negligence and
gross negligence and damages in the amount of $600,000. Other than the admissions, the facts

2

are largely drawn from plaintiff’s own account and a state criminal proceeding in which
MacIntyre and Harrell pleaded guilty, agreeing to certain matters as presented by the prosecutor.
Thus, the underlying facts are somewhat one-sided, particularly as to the questions of gross
negligence and damages. Further development of the factual record will permit the case to be
resolved on the merits.
Accordingly, defendants’ motion to withdraw the admissions will be granted. In light of
the withdrawal of the admission, the Court will grant both parties an extension of the fact and
expert discovery periods. The revised discovery schedule will be set at the next conference.
II.

Motion for Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material

fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). With the
admissions withdrawn, it appears that there are substantial disputes of material fact that render
summary judgment inappropriate. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment will
be denied without prejudice to its renewal.
III.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion for leave to withdraw admissions is

GRANTED. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
So Ordered.

/s/ F. Dennis Saylor
F. Dennis Saylor IV
United States District Judge
Dated: March 25, 2014

3