Coach, Inc. et al v. Gata Corporation et al

Filing 87

ORDER granting 73 Motion for Discovery regarding the Sufficiency of Defendants' Answers to Requests for Admissions. Defendants shall have ten days from the date of this order to serve amended answers to each of the nineteen requests identified. If, however, defendants fail to do so, then the matters in each of those requests shall be deemed admitted. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty. (kad)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Coach, Inc. and
Coach Services, Inc.
v.

Case No. 10-cv-141-LM

Gata Corporation
and Martin Taylor

O R D E R
Before the court is plaintiffs’ motion regarding the
sufficiency of some of defendants’ answers to plaintiffs’
requests for admissions.

In their motion, plaintiffs ask the

court either to strike certain portions of defendants’ responses
and deem the matters admitted, or to order defendants to serve
amended answers that comply with Rule 36(a)(4) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure (“Federal Rules”).
responded.

Defendants have not

For the reasons that follow, and to the extent

described below, plaintiffs’ motion is granted.
The Federal Rules describe in some detail the standards a
party must meet when answering requests for admissions:
If a matter is not admitted, the answer must
specifically deny it or state in detail why the
answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A
denial must fairly respond to the substance of the
matter; and when good faith requires that a party
qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the

answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or
deny the rest. The answering party may assert lack of
knowledge or information as a reason for failing to
admit or deny only if the party states that it has
made reasonable inquiry and that the information it
knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable
it to admit or deny.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4).
Plaintiffs contend that nineteen of defendants’ answers
fail to meet one or more of the standards articulated above.
Specifically, they argue that: (1) the answer to Request 18 does
not adequately assert a lack of knowledge or information; (2)
the answers to Requests 2, 4, 20, 25, 31, and 46-50 fail to
clearly admit or deny the matters described in those requests;
(3) the answers to Requests 21, 25, 28, 29, 37, and 38 include
impertinent material that should be stricken; and (4) the
answers to Requests 36, 40, and 42 are entirely nonsensical.
Based upon its own assessment of defendants’ answers, the court
agrees with plaintiffs that those answers are, indeed, deficient
for the reasons articulated in plaintiffs’ motion.
Plaintiffs ask the court to strike certain material from
some of defendants’ responses and to deem certain matters
admitted, due to the deficiencies in some of defendants’
responses.

Indeed, when a party moves “to determine the

sufficiency of an answer,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(6), the court,

2

“[o]n finding that an answer does not comply with [Rule 36]
. . . may order either that the matter is admitted or that an
amended answer be served,” id.

Here, the court is persuaded

that the better course is to order defendants to serve an
amended answer that addresses plaintiffs’ concerns and complies
with Rule 36(a)(4).

Accordingly, defendants shall have ten days

from the date of this order to serve amended answers to each of
the nineteen requests identified above.

If, howoever,

defendants fail to do so, then the matters in each of those
requests shall be deemed admitted.
SO ORDERED.

__________________________
Landya McCafferty
United States Magistrate Judge
July 21, 2011
cc:

Kelly Martin Malone, Esq.
Sean T. O'Connell, Esq.
Jeffrey K. Techentin, Esq.

3