Cohane v. National Collegiate Athletic Association et al

Filing 109

ORDER resolving 93 Motion for Discovery. Signed by Hon. H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr on 3/26/2012. (KER)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

TIMOTHY M. COHANE,
Plaintiff,

04-CV-0181S(Sr)

v.

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER
This case was referred to the undersigned by the Hon. William M.
Skretny, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), for all pretrial matters, and for
hearing and disposition of all non-dispositive motions or applications. Dkt. #40.

Plaintiff, Timothy M. Cohane, the former head coach for the Sate
University of New York at Buffalo (“SUNY at Buffalo”), basketball team, commenced
this action against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”), et al., alleging
that he was denied due process and deprived of a liberty interest during the course of
an investigation and hearing with respect to alleged violations of NCAA rules. Dkt. #1.

Currently before the Court is defendants’ motion challenging nine of
plaintiff’s responses to defendants’ first request for admissions and asking the Court to
deem the facts set forth in those requests admitted pursuant to Rule 36(a)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #93. Defendants argue that these requests are

not “trick” questions designed to trap plaintiff, but are “simple, unambiguous requests
relating to basic facts proven exhaustively by the record in this case.” Dkt. #94, p.7.

Plaintiff responds that the qualification of his responses to defendants’
requests for admissions was necessary because the requests were “crafted in such a
manner so as to attempt to pigeonhole plaintiff into erroneous admissions that go to the
heart of the matter before this court[,] i.e.[,] fairness and the opportunity to be heard
and respond to charges.” Dkt. #97, p.2. Plaintiff argues that
When material evidence is withheld, when false evidence
and statements are proffered and when improper ex-parte
communications between accusers and adjudicators occur,
it is impossible to conceive that the accused received an
opportunity to be heard or that the NCAA proceedings even
constituted a hearing.
Dkt. #97, p.6.

Rule 36(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “a
party may serve on any other party a written request to admit, for purposes of the
pending action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating
to: (A) facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either; and (B) the
genuineness of any described documents.”
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.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4).
-2-

The requesting party may move to determine the sufficiency
of an answer or objection. Unless the court finds an
objection justified, it must order that an answer be served.
On finding that an answer does not comply with this rule, the
court may order either that the matter is admitted or that an
amended answer be served.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(6).

Requests for Admissions are intended to narrow the factual issues of a
case. Booth Oil Site Administrative Group v. Safety-Kleen, 194 F.R.D. 76, 79
(W.D.N.Y. 2000). The party requesting admission “bears the burden of setting forth its
requests simply, directly, not vaguely or ambiguously, and in such a manner that they
can be answered with a simple admit or deny without an explanation, and in certain
instances, permit a qualification or explanation for purposes of clarification.” Henry v.
Champlain Enterprises, Inc., 212 F.R.D. 73, 77 (N.D.N.Y. 2003). “Generally,
qualification is permitted if the statement, although containing some truth, . . . standing
alone out of context of the whole truth . .. convey[s] unwarranted and unfair inferences.”
Diederich v. Dep’t of Army, 132 F.R.D. 614, 619 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (internal quotations
omitted). Any such qualifications should “provide clarity and lucidity to the
genuineness of the issue” and not “obfuscate, frustrate, or compound the references.”
Henry, 212 F.R.D. at 78. “Qualifying a response may be particularly appropriate if the
request is sweeping, multi-part, involves sharply contested issues, or goes to the heart
of a defendant’s liability.” Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petro. Co., No. 01CIV1909, 2009 WL
1457142, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 26, 2009).

-3-

In the instant case, plaintiff has qualified his responses to make clear his
position that the process afforded to him was not adequate because exculpatory
evidence was withheld from him, thereby impeding his ability to defend against the
accusations leveled against him in a meaningful manner. Given the gratuitous verbiage
included in several of defendants’ requests, such a qualification is understandable, if
not actually warranted. On the other hand, plaintiff should not be allowed to avoid
admissions as to the process which was provided to him because of his argument that
this process was insufficient or otherwise deficient. Accordingly, upon review of the
defendants’ first request for admissions, and plaintiff’s responses thereto, the Court
orders as follows:

Number 4:
Plaintiff is directed to admit or deny, without qualification, whether he
provided a written response regarding the alleged rule violations to the Committee on
Infractions (“COI”), prior to the February 9, 2001 COI hearing.

Number 5:
Plaintiff’s admission that he appeared, with counsel, before the NCAA
COI on February 9, 2001 in Tampa Fla is sufficient.

Number 9:
Plaintiff’s admission that bates numbers 1600-1783 is an accurate copy of
the response submitted to the COI by Cohane is sufficient.

-4-

Number 10:
Plaintiff’s admission that bates nos 777-853 is an accurate copy of the
response submitted to the COI by Cohane is sufficient.

Number 14:
Plaintiff is directed to admit or deny, without qualification, whether he
presented arguments and documents on his behalf during the COI hearing.

Number 21:
Plaintiff is directed to admit or deny, without qualification, whether bates
nos 948-1188 is an accurate copy of documents submitted by plaintiff in support of his
appeal on or about April 27, 2001.

Number 22:
Plaintiff is directed to admit or deny, without qualification, whether he
submitted further information, including affidavits, in support of his appeal on or about
June 28, 2001.

Number 28:
Plaintiff is directed to admit or deny, without qualification, whether he
presented information, argued, answered questions and lodged challenges or
objections to the COI’s Report during the IAC appeal hearing.

-5-

Number 32:
Plaintiff is directed to admit or deny, without qualification, whether plaintiff
and his counsel met with Defendants Tom Hosty and Stephanie Hannah at plaintiff’s
counsel’s office in Massachusetts on or about January 8, 2001 at plaintiff’s request.

SO ORDERED.

DATED:

Buffalo, New York
March 26, 2012

s/ H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr.
H. KENNETH SCHROEDER, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

-6-