Illes v. Kcomt et al

Filing 52

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - AND NOW, this 19th day of June, 2012, upon consideration of plf.'s mtns. to compel discovery & for reconsideration, defts.' responses thereto, & pur. to the accompanying memorandum, it is ordered that: 1. Plf.'s mtn. to compel discovery 30 is DENIED as moot. 2. Plf.'s mtn. for reconsideration 40 is DENIED. (See memo for complete details.) Signed by Honorable William W. Caldwell on 6/19/12. (am, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RICHARD W. ILLES, SR., M.D.
Plaintiff
vs.

DR. BARRY BEAVEN et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
: CIVIL NO. 1:12-CV-0395
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

MEMORANDUM
I.

Introduction
This matter involves the medical treatment Plaintiff, Richard Illes, Sr., M.D.,

received while temporarily housed at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill (“SCI
Camp Hill”). Presently before the court are Plaintiff’s motions to compel discovery and
for reconsideration.
II.

Background
On January 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed the instant action in the Court of

Common Pleas of Cumberland County, alleging medical malpractice, breach of
confidentiality, and violation of the Eighth Amendment. Defendants removed the action
on March 1, 2012. On April 30, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery and
sought an order deeming all unanswered requests for admissions as admitted. On the

same day, Defendants McGinnis, Newfield, and Underwood filed a motion for an
extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. On May 1, 2012, we
granted Defendants’ motion, allowing them until May 21, 2012 to respond. On May 9,
2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of our May 1, 2012 Order, asking the
court to deem the unanswered requests as admitted.
III.

Discussion
A. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery and Deem Unanswered
Requests for Admissions Admitted
We granted Defendants’ motion for an extension of time to respond to

Plaintiff’s discovery requests nunc pro tunc, making his request to compel discovery and
deem unanswered requests for admissions admitted moot.
Plaintiff argues that the requests for admissions were automatically
deemed admitted after thirty days pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a).
Rule 36(a)(3) provides “A shorter or longer time for responding may be . . . ordered by
the court.” Our May 1, 2012 Order allowed Defendants to respond by May 21, 2012.
Thus, Plaintiff’s argument that Defendants did not respond within the prescribed period
fails.1

Even assuming, arguendo, that Defendants’ admissions were admitted
pursuant to Rule 36(a), the court may permit admissions to be withdrawn or amended
“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) (emphasis added).
Allowing Defendants to withdraw and amend their admissions promotes the
presentation of the merits of the action. While Plaintiff may now be required to prove
1

2

B. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
The Third Circuit has clearly held that motions for reconsideration should
be used “to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence.” Howard Hess Dental Labs., Inc. v. Dentsply, Int’l, Inc., 602 F.3d 237, 251 (3d
Cir. 2010) (quoting Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985)). A party
seeking reconsideration should show (1) a change in the controlling law, (2) new
evidence, or (3) a clear error of law or fact, or manifest injustice. See id.
Plaintiff argues that our Order extending the date for Defendants to
respond to requests for admissions was a violation of Local Rule 7.7. He asserts that
this Rule entitles him the right to file a Reply Brief. To the extent Plaintiff wanted to file a
brief opposing the motion for an extension of time, he would be required to file a Brief in
Opposition, which is governed by Local Rule 7.6. This rule allows an opposition brief to
be filed within fourteen days of receipt of the movant’s brief. It goes on, however, to
provide “Nothing in this rule shall be construed to limit the authority of the court to grant
any motion before expiration of the prescribed period for filing a brief in opposition.”
Given the unambiguous language of the rule, Plaintiff’s argument that our May 1, 2012
Order violated the local rules fails. Plaintiff has failed to set forth an adequate basis for
granting reconsideration, and his motion will be denied.

his claims against Defendants, no discovery deadlines have been set and the case is
in the early stages. Allowing Defendants a brief amount of additional time to respond
to Plaintiff’s discovery requests does not prejudice Plaintiff in maintaining the action on
the merits.
3

IV.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we will deny Plaintiff’s motions to compel

discovery and for reconsideration. We will issue an appropriate order.

/s/William W. Caldwell
William W. Caldwell
United States District Judge

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RICHARD W. ILLES, SR., M.D.
Plaintiff

:
:
:

vs.

: CIVIL NO. 1:12-CV-0395
:

DR. BARRY BEAVEN et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:

ORDER
AND NOW, this 19th day of June, 2012, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s
motions to compel discovery and for reconsideration, Defendants’ responses thereto,
and pursuant to the accompanying memorandum, it is ordered that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery (doc. 30) is DENIED as moot.
2. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (doc. 40) is DENIED.
/s/William W. Caldwell
William W. Caldwell
United States District Judge

5