Freeman v. Detroit, City of et al
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 22 MOTION TO DEEM ADMISSIONS. Signed by District Judge Gerald E. Rosen. (RGun)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Hon. Gerald E. Rosen
CITY OF DETROIT AND DETROIT
POLICE OFFICER JAMES NAPIER,
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO DEEM ADMISSIONS
At a session of said Court, held in
the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan
May 24, 2011
Honorable Gerald E. Rosen
United States District Chief Judge
This matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff Dwuan Freeman’s Motion to
Deem Admissions to have been admitted by Defendant Police Officer James Napier.
Defendant, through counsel, has responded to Plaintiff’s Motion.
Having reviewed and considered the parties’ briefs and supporting exhibits, and
the entire record of this matter, the Court finds that the pertinent facts and legal
contentions are sufficiently presented in these materials, and that oral argument would not
assist in the resolution of this matter. Accordingly, pursuant to Eastern District of
Michigan Local Rule 7.1(f)(2), the Court will decide Defendant’s motion “on the briefs.”
This Opinion and Order sets forth the Court’s ruling.
Plaintiff claims that on July 7, 2010, he served upon Defendant James Napier 57
Requests for Admission and therein informed Defendant that his responses were due
within 30 days, i.e., on August 9, 2010. No proof of service, however, has been filed or
otherwise provided to the Court verifying this assertion. Nor has Plaintiff filed or
otherwise provided to the Court a copy of these Requests for Admission. Eastern District
of Michigan Local Rule 26.2 requires the filing of such discovery requests when, as here,
they provide factual support and/or are germane to a party’s motion. See also, Fed. R.
Civ. P. 5(d)(1) (requiring the filing of depositions, interrogatories, requests for documents
or tangible things or to permit entry on land, and requests for admission when they are
used in the proceeding)
Defendant’s counsel, however, claims that he was never properly served with the
Requests for Admission but that on September 21, 2010, nearly two months after the
discovery cutoff and three weeks after the motion cutoff and after Defendants had filed
their motion for summary judgment in this case, Plaintiff’s counsel sent defense counsel
an e-mail which included copies of a number of purportedly outstanding deposition
notices and discovery requests -- including the disputed Requests for Admission. Service
by e-mail, however, is not permitted unless the person being served consented to such
electronic service in writing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E). According to this e-mail
correspondence, it appears that Plaintiff’s counsel had been attempting service upon
Defendant by e-mail throughout the discovery period, but defense counsel never received
the prior emails. Although if consented to, service by electronic means is normally
complete “upon transmission,” it “is not effective if the serving party learns that it did not
reach the person to be served.” Id.1 In any event, after receiving the September 21
electronic copy of the Requests for Admission, on October 12, 2010, Defendant
responded to them on October 12, 2010.
Having failed to establish proper service of the Requests for Admission during the
discovery period, Plaintiff is precluded from attempting to deem the Requests admitted
based on Defendant’s failure to respond within 30 days of July 7 or 10, 2010 (i.e., the
dates on which Plaintiff alleges to have originally served Defendant).
Furthermore, even assuming Plaintiff properly served Defendant with the
Requests in July 2010 (within the discovery period), his Motion to Deem Admissions
was not filed until September 29, 2010. The Scheduling Order entered by the Court in
this matter provides that any discovery motions must be filed within 14 days of the date
that requested discovery was due. [See January 7, 2010 Scheduling Order, ¶ 2A (Dkt. #
Included among the correspondence and pleadings emailed to defense counsel
on September 21, 2010 was an unsigned purported “proof of srvice” which stated that
Plaintiff’s counsel personally hand-delivered the disputed Requests for Admission to the
City of Detroit Law Department on July 10, 2010 (See Defendant’s Ex. A). However,
the City Law Department was closed and its doors locked on July 10, 2010 as it was a
Saturday. No delivery was ever received by Defendant’s counsel.
13); see also June 14, 2010 Order Granting Extension of Deadlines (Dkt. # 17) (extending
deadlines but providing that “[i]n all other respects, the provisions of the original
Scheduling Order remain in full force and effect.”).] Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem
Admissions was not filed within this 14-day time limit.
Plaintiff argues that Requests for Admission are not a general discovery device
and, therefore, he did not have to comply with July 31, 2010 discovery deadline set in
this case or the Court’s 14-day discovery motion rule. While it is true that the Sixth
Circuit did state in Misco, Inc. v. United States Steel Corp, 784 F.2d 198 (6th Cir. 1986),
that “Requests for admissions are not a general discovery device,” id. at 205 (citing 8 C.
Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2253 at 706 & n. 23 (1970)),
compliance with court-ordered deadlines was not addressed in that case. The only issue
presented in Misco with respect to requests for admission was whether the district court
had abused its discretion in determining that all but 18 of the 2,028 requests for
admission served by the plaintiff upon the defendant were actually interrogatories, and
therefore, subject to the local court rule then effect which limited the number of
interrogatories that may be propounded to 30. Id. The appellate court found no abuse of
discretion, holding that
[A] district court has broad discretion in regulating discovery. (Citation
omitted). Misco’s filing of 2,028 “requests for admissions” was both an
abuse of the discovery process and an improper attempt to circumvent the
local district court rule which limited the number of interrogatories to
thirty. Accordingly, the district court clearly acted properly in limiting
Misco’s discovery in this respect.
784 F.2d at 206.
As a number of courts within this Circuit have noted, there is a split among the
circuits and dissension among the district courts as to whether requests for admission are
subject to discovery deadlines in scheduling orders. See e.g., EEOC v. Rent-a-Center,
Inc., 2001 WL 1096273 at *3 text & fns. 2, 3 (W.D. Tenn. 2001), and cases cited therein.
The majority view, however, appears to be that they are. See e.g., United States v.
Guidant Corp., 2010 WL 2838539 (M.D. Tenn. 2010); 3M Innovative Properties Co. v.
DuPont Dow Elastomers, LLC, 2005 WL 6007042 at *2 (D. Minn. 2005); Brodeur v.
McNamee, 2005 WL 1774033 at *2 (N.D.N.Y. 2005); Shroyer v. Vaughn, 2002 WL
32144316 at *2 n. 2 (N.D. Ind. 2002). As the court observed in Jarvis v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., 161 F.R.D. 337, 339 (N.D. Miss. 1995), it is by no coincidence that Rule 36
is located under the heading of “Depositions and Discovery” in the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and therefore, should be subject to the same deadline rules as all other general
As the District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee found in United States
v. Guidant, the better reasoned cases hold that requests for admission are subject to courtordered discovery deadlines. 2010 WL 2838539 at *2. “Moreover, from the practical,
utilitarian standpoint, to exempt requests for admission from the court’s deadlines here
would permit the parties to serve requests on their adversaries without limitation -- and
potentially generate discovery disputes -- right up to the trial date.” Id.
This Court agrees with these cases and joins the majority in concluding that
requests for admission are subject to the deadlines set by the Court in its Scheduling
Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Admissions here was filed well-beyond the expiration
of the 14-day deadline provided in the Court’s Scheduling Order. Therefore, the Motion
will be denied.
However, even assuming the timeliness of Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Admissions
would not necessarily mean that Plaintiff is entitled to a ruling in his favor on this matter.
Pursuant to Rule 36, “[a]ny matter admitted under this rule is conclusively
established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the
admission.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b). A court may allow a party to amend or withdraw its
responses when (1) it would be beneficial to the presentation of the merits of the case and
(2) it would result in no prejudice to the party obtaining the admission in its claims or
defenses. O’Neill v. Medad, 166 F.R.D. 19, 22 (E.D. Mich. 1996); see also St. Regis
Paper Co. v. Upgrade Corp., 86 F.R.D. 355, 357 (W.D. Mich. 1980) (a court may allow
a party to amend or withdraw defaulted admissions to assist in the “normal, orderly
presentation of the case” absent a showing of prejudice by the other party.)
The first prong of this test is satisfied when the admissions would “practically
eliminate” the presentation of the contested issues by the parties. See EEOC v. Rent-aCenter, supra, 2001 WL 1906273 at *2. This prong, therefore, would be satisfied by
allowing Defendant’s “admissions by default” (due to untimeliness of responses) to
stand. The second prong is only satisfied, however, if Plaintiff can show he would suffer
prejudice in the event the Court allowed Defendant to withdraw the defaulted admissions
by permitting his October 12, 2010 responses to stand. See id.
In this case, the discovery deadline has passed, depositions have been taken,
interrogatories and other discovery devices have been propounded and responses
provided. The requests for admission did not influence Plaintiff in his decisions in
discovery, i.e., he did not decide whose depositions to take or what interrogatories to
propound based upon the defaulted admissions. All matters on the Scheduling Order
(except for the final pretrial conference and trial itself) have been completed. Plaintiff
has not articulated any prejudice due to the unavailability of witnesses, for example, that
may result if the defaulted admissions are withdrawn. Furthermore, Defendant Napier
moved in a timely manner to respond to the requests for admission once they were finally
received by his counsel.
The only prejudice Plaintiff can assert is that he will have to prove the merits of
his case rather than simply relying on the defaulted admissions to establish his claims.
There is no prejudice in requiring a plaintiff to perform the tasks he originally set out to
fulfill by bringing a lawsuit. See EEOC v. Rent-a-Center, supra. Requiring Mr. Freeman
to prove his case and attempt to prevail on the merits “is the most fundamental one for
the plaintiff and cannot be considered prejudicial under any circumstance.” Id.
For all of the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Admissions [Dkt. #
22] is DENIED.
s/Gerald E. Rosen
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: May 24, 2011
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
on May 24, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Ruth A. Gunther
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?