Wilson v. Bolivar County Mississippi (Bolivar County Board of Supervisors) et al
Filing
53
ORDER denying 42 Motion for Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge S. Allan Alexander on 3/16/15. (mhf)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
STEPHANIE R. WILSON,
v.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. : 4:14-CV-156-MPM-SAA
BOLIVAR COUNTY MISSISSIPPI (BOLIVAR
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS), BOLIVAR
COUNTY REGIONAL CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
and JOHN DOES 1-100 INCLUSIVE,
DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Plaintiff seeks an order deeming admitted the requests for admissions which she
propounded to defendants under Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Docket 42.
On December 18, 2014, the same date as the Case Management Conference in this case, plaintiff
filed a Notice of Service of written discovery, including her First Set of Requests for Admission
to defendants, and sent copies of the requests via hand-delivery, email, and the court’s electronic
filing system. Docket 31. Defendants filed a Notice of Service of responses to requests for
admissions on December 19, 2014. Docket 34. However, defense counsel acknowledges that
even though counsel filed the Notice of Service, the actual responses themselves apparently were
not delivered to plaintiff’s counsel. Docket 43, p. 2. Due to a national holiday, defendants’
responses were due January 20, 2015. The plaintiff filed the present motion to deem the requests
admitted on February 27, 2011 when the defendants still had not sent written responses to the
requests by that date. Plaintiff has also filed a Motion to Strike the defendants’ Notice of Service
of the responses to requests for admissions. Docket 49.
Defendants have responded to the motions, and although they acknowledge that the
written responses were not served on plaintiff’s counsel, and facially these requests for
admissions ordinarily would be deemed admitted, they request that the motion be denied because
the failure was attributable to honest error and mistake. Docket 43, p. 2. Defendants also filed
an affirmative Motion to Withdraw Admissions and allow response to the requests. Docket 44.
In support of this argument, defense counsel notes that his office sent requests to plaintiff’s
counsel via email on January 14 and February 2, 2015 – before the expiration of the 30-day
deadline for response – to request additional time to serve defendants’ answers and responses to
plaintiff’s interrogatories and requests for production of documents, but did not include a request
for extension of time to respond to requests for admissions. Docket 43, p. 3.
Under Rule 36(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requests for admission are
deemed admitted if not answered within thirty days. Although the Rule is a stringent one,
subsection (b) provides:
A matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless
the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or
amended. Subject to Rule 16(e), the court may permit withdrawal or
amendment 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
....
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b). The undersigned finds that the defendants’ failure to timely serve their
responses was indeed attributable to honest error and mistake. Moreover, allowing defendants’
belated response to the requests for admission without question will promote the presentation of
the merits of the action. The plaintiff will not be prejudiced by an order allowing the defendants
to respond and withdraw their admissions. The peculiar circumstances and relative equities
2
presented by this situation justify denial of the motion. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion to
deem defendants’ responses to plaintiff’s set of requests for admissions as admitted is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this the 16th day of March, 2015.
/s/ S. Allan Alexander
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3
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?