Lukenheimer Company et al v. Tyco Flow Control Pacific Pty Ltd. et al

Filing 83

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DEEM PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFF TYCO FLOW CONTROL PACIFIC PTY LTD.'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ANSWERED IN TIME (Doc. 80 ). Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 6/25/2013. (mr1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
THE LUNKENHEIMER COMPANY,
et al.

:
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
vs.
:
:
TYCO FLOW CONTROL PACIFIC PTY :
LTD., et al.
:
:
Defendants.
:

Case No. 1:11-cv-824

Judge Timothy S. Black

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DEEM PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANTS’
RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFF TYCO
FLOW CONTROL PACIFIC PTY LTD.’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
ANSWERED IN TIME (Doc. 80)
This civil action is before the Court on Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants’
Motion to Deem Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants’ Response to Defendant and
Counterclaim Plaintiff Tyco Flow Control Pacific Pty Ltd. (“TFCP”)’s Requests for
Admissions Answered in Time (Doc. 80) and the parties’ responsive memoranda. (Docs.
81 and 82).
On February 22, 2013, TFCP served Requests for Admission on
Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants. (Doc. 81 at 4). Fed. R. Civ P. 36(a)(3) provides that
“[a] matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served, the party to whom the
request is directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or objection addressed
to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney,” and Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) allows for
an additional three days if served via regular mail. Consequently, written answers or

objections were due from Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants on or before March 27,
2013. (Doc. 81 at 4). However, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants’ third counsel in this
matter, Patrick J. Hanley, Esq., had entered his appearance just the day before, on March
26, 2013. (Doc. 67). Pursuant to the status conference by telephone held on April 17,
2013, this Court granted Mr. Hanley 30 days to respond to all outstanding discovery
requests in consideration of his need to get up to speed on the case. (Doc. 71).
Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants served their responses to TFCP’s Requests for
Admissions on May 20, 2013. (Doc. 80 at 3).
Federal courts enjoy discretion to permit extensions for answering requests for
admission and discretion to accept answers that would otherwise be late. See United
States v. Petroff-Kline, 557 F.3d 285, 293 (6th Cir. 2009). Based on this discretion, and
upon the Court’s preference for a full presentation on the merits, and in light of Mr.
Hanley’s need for a reasonable accommodation of his recent entry into the case, and to
the degree that the alleged prejudice in preparing a dispositive motion upon the presumed
admissions was somewhat self-inflicted given the Court’s granting of an extension on
outstanding discovery, the Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants’ Motion to Deem
Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants’ Responses to Defendant and Counterclaim
Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions Answered in Time (Doc. 80) is hereby GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 6/25/13

s/ Timothy S. Black
Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge

-2-