React Presents, Inc v. Eagle Theater Entertainment, LLC et al

Filing 58

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Admission 37 . Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
REACT PRESENTS, INC.,
Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 16-13288
HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD

v.
EAGLE THEATER ENTERTAINMENT,
LLC,
BLAIR MCGOWAN,
AMIR DAIZA,
MATTHEW FARRIS,
Defendants.
_________________________________________/
SFX REACT-OPERATING LLC,
Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 16-13311
HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD

v.
EAGLE THEATHER ENTERTAINMENT,
LLC,
BLAIR MCGOWAN,
AMIR DAIZA,
MATTHEW FARRIS,
Defendants.
__________________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT
TO ANSWER PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSION [#37]
1

Now before the Court is Plaintiff React Presents, Inc.’s (“React”) Motion to
Compel Defendant Eagle Theater Entertainment, LLC (“ETE”) to Answer
Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admission. (Doc # 37) React filed this Rule
36 motion to admit its first set of information requests or, in the alternative, to
compel ETE to answer the requests within fourteen days. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36;
Doc # 37, Ex. A. ETE objected, claiming that the admissions should be stayed
while its Motions for Sanctions (Doc # 26; Doc # 29) were pending, for the alleged
use of stolen information by React in developing their Complaint and subsequent
motions. (Doc # 48) This Court has since denied ETE’s Motions for Sanctions
with prejudice (see Doc # 50, filed on March 29, 2018), and React filed a Reply
insisting its motion be granted, since ETE’s only grounds for objection were
dismissed by the Court. (Doc # 51) The Court agrees and GRANTS React’s
Motion to Compel Defendant Eagle Theater Entertainment, LLC to respond to the
Requests for Admission within fourteen days of this filing.
I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Any party may use a Rule 36 Motion to request the admission of any relevant
matters, including facts and applications of law to facts. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36; see
United States v. Petroff-Kline, 557 F.3d 285, 293 (6th Cir. 2009). The responding
party has thirty days to address or object to the request. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3).
Failure to file a timely response or objection results in an admission. Id.; Goodson
2

v. Brennan, 688 F. App’x 372, 375 (6th Cir. 2017). At any time, the requesting
party may move to determine whether an objection or answer is sufficient. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 36(a)(6). If deemed insufficient, the court has discretion to “order either
that the matter is admitted or that an amended answer be served.” Id. When
compelling a response from the requested party, the district court has discretion in
setting a date for compliance. See Akins v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., No. 10-CV12755, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82806, at *8–12 ( E.D. Mich. July 28, 2011)
(granting fourteen day period for party to respond to requests for admission after
finding objections to motions were insufficient).
II.

ANALYSIS

React requests that either the nine requested admissions be deemed admitted by
the Court, or that ETE be compelled to respond within fourteen days. ETE’s
objections to the requests for admission are based solely on their claim that React
committed sanctionable violations while preparing for the litigation. (Doc # 48)
ETE conceded they would be required to respond to the requests if their sanctions
motions were denied, and requested twenty-one days to prepare its responses. (Id.
at 2) Since this Court denied ETE’s sanctions motions with prejudice over two
months ago (Doc # 50), ETE’s objections to React’s motion are insufficient. The
Court now compels ETE to respond to React’s requests within fourteen-days from
the filing of this order. A fourteen-day window is justified since there are only
3

nine requests.

There is a high likelihood that ETE already possesses this

information, and ETE has had several months of notice that its objections were not
sufficient to deny Plaintiff’s requests.
III.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff React Presents, Inc.’s Motion to
Compel Defendant to Answer the First Set of Requested Admissions (Doc # 37) is
GRANTED, and Defendant Eagle Theater Entertainment, LLC is compelled to
respond to the requests within fourteen days from the filing of this order.

S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: August 10, 2018
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon
counsel of record on August 10, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

4