NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION et al v. WOCKHARDT USA LLC et al
OPINION AND ORDER ON INFORMAL MOTION REGARDING REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS D.E. 562 ; Informal Motion Denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion on 3/12/15. (js)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
IN RE: CERTAIN CONSOLIDATED
ZOLEDRONIC ACID CASES
Civil Action No.
OPINION AND ORDER ON INFORMAL
MOTION REGARDING REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSIONS [D.E. 562]
Before this Court is defendant Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC’s
informal motion to compel plaintiff Novatis to answer eight
Requests for Admissions. The parties framed the dispute in two
joint dispute letters. [D.E. 550 at § 7, 562].
Magistrate judges may consider and decide non-dispositive
pretrial matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
District Court formerly assigned this matter to the undersigned
for pre-trial management on December 9, 2014.
Proper Use of Requests for Admission
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a) applies to this
At issue are eight Requests for Admissions. “The
purpose of Rule 36(a) is to narrow the issues for trial to those
which are genuinely contested.” United Coal Companies v. Powell
Const. Co., 839 F.2d 958, 967 (3d Cir. 1988).
admissions are not a discovery device. Harris v. Koenig, 271
F.R.D. 356, 372 (D.D.C. 2010)(“ The purpose of requests for
admissions is to narrow the scope of issues to be litigated and
to thereby expedite the litigation process.”).
This device is
surgical and should be used “to eliminate issues over facts that
are not in dispute”, not “to obtain discovery of the existence
of facts, but rather are intended to establish the admission of
facts about which there is no real dispute.”
Co., LLC ex rel. Exelon Generation Co., LLC v. United States, 94
Fed.Cl. 413, 416 (Fed.Cl. 2010).
Thus, requests for admission differ from interrogatories.
The latter are a discovery device designed “to obtain simple
facts, to narrow the issues by securing admissions from the
other party, and to obtain information needed in order to make
use of the other discovery procedures....
be a simple mode of obtaining the names and addresses of persons
having knowledge of pertinent facts, or of securing information
about the existence of documentary evidence[.]”
Property & Cas. Co. v. Johnson, 272 F.R.D. 177, 183 (S.D.W.Va.
2010)(quoting Wright, Miller, & Marcus, Federal Practice &
Procedure: Civil 3d § 2163).
Fresenius first RFA states: Admit that the “improve[d]
renal safety” described in Claim 1, 7 and 12 of the ’189 patent
is an inherent result of administering 4 mg of zoledronic acid
in an infusion solution volume from about 5 up to 200 ml over a
period of 15 minutes. [D.E. 562 (emphasis added)].
RFA states: Admit that the “improve[d] renal safety” described
in Claims 1, 7 and 12 of the ’189 patent is not an inherent
result of administering 4 mg of zoledronic acid in an infusion
solution volume from about 5 up to 200 ml over a period of 15
minutes. [D.E. 562 (emphasis added)].
Obviously, there is a
real factual dispute here because the two RFAs seek admissions
on diametrically opposed factual contentions.
Thus, these RFAs
are being improperly used as discovery devices and not to narrow
issues for which there is no real dispute.
Similarly, Fresenius’ second and fourth, fifth and seventh,
sixth and eighth RFAs also seek admissions on opposed factual
IT IS on this Thursday, March 12, 2015,
ORDERED that defendant Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC’s informal
motion to compel, D.E. 562 is denied.
3/12/2015 5:06:03 PM
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?