Jennings v. Algeco Scotsman et al
Filing
41
ORDER AND OPINION granting in part and denying in part 36 Defendant Williams Scotsman's Motion to Compel. The Court GRANTS the motion as to requests to admit numbers 9(a) and 13(a), DENIES AS MOOT the motion as to request for admission number 17, and otherwise DENIES the motion. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 6/12/2018.(sshe, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Thomas Jennings,
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 2: 17-231-RMG
)
V.
ORDER AND OPINION
)
)
Algeco Scotsman and Williams Scotsman, )
)
Defendants.
)
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Williams Scotman's motion to compel. For
the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.
I.
Background
This is a slip and fall case. Plaintiff alleges he fell down at in a mobile office unit in
Lincolnville, South Carolina, owned by Defendants, because the wooden floorboards had rotted.
In 1997, Plaintiff pleaded guilty to strong arm robbery of a Winn-Dixie supermarket. He was
sentenced to ten years imprisonment, and actually served about four years. Plaintiff was deposed
in this matter on January 24, 2018. He gave testimony regarding the circumstances of his guilty
plea in 1997. Defendants doubt the veracity of his testimony, and subpoenaed records from the
South Carolina Department of Corrections and from the Charleston Police Department.
Defendants view the contents of those records as inconsistent with Plaintiffs deposition testimony.
Essentially, Plaintiff testified that he entered the Winn-Dixie to rob an ATM inside the store, but
records appear to indicate that Plaintiff tied up the manager, took his keys, and robbed the store.
Defendants served requests to admit regarding those records, with an interlocking interrogatory to
explain the basis for any denial and request to produce any documents related to a denial.
-1-
Defendants view Plaintiffs responses as inadequate and Defendant Williams Scotsman has filed
the present motion to compel an adequate response.
II.
Legal Standard
Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, "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." Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(l).
Rules 36(a)(4) and (5) provide as follows:
(4) Answer. 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 reasonably inquiry and that the information it knows or can
readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny.
(5) Objections. The grounds for objecting to a request must be stated. A party must
not object solely on the ground that the request presents a genuine issue for trial.
Additionally, Rule 36(a)(6) allows a party who has served a request for admission to move the
court "to determine the sufficiency of an answer or objection. Unless the court finds an objection
justified, it must order that an answer be served."
If a party declines to answer an interrogatory or request for production, the serving party
"may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection." Fed. R.
Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). An evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response, "must be treated
as a failure to disclose, answer or respond." Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). "The scope and conduct of
discovery are within the sound discretion of the district court." Columbus- Am. Discovery Grp. v.
At!. Mut. Ins. Co., 56 F.3d 556, 568 n.16 (4th Cir. 1995).
-2-
III.
Discussion
Defendant moves the Court to address the sufficiency of the Plaintiffs responses to
requests to admit numbers 7 (a-f), 9, 10, 11, 13 (a-f), 15, 16, 17 and 18.
A.
Request to admit number 7 (a-f)
Plaintiff was asked to admit that certain South Carolina Department of Corrections
("SCDC") records: (a) are a true and authentic copy of South Carolina Department of Correction
records created for the incarceration of Plaintiff; (b) were made and kept in the ordinary course
and scope of the SCDC' s regular course of activity and/or the administration of criminal justice;
(c) pertain to acts, events, observations, and discussions made at or near the time by, or from
information transmitted by, a person with knowledge in the course of a regularly conducted activity
and/or the administration of criminal justice; (d) are records generated by public officials and
contain information the public officials had a duty to report; (e) are records generated by public
officials and set forth factual findings derived from a legally authorized investigation; and (f) that
there is no evidence the records came from an untrustworthy source or as the result of an
untrustworthy method.
In response, Plaintiff denied request to admit 7(a), stating that "various pages and portions
of pages" are not legible and that certain pages were not created by SCDC. Defendant argues
Plaintiff should have to admit to the authenticity of any portion of the records to which that
objection does not apply. The Court agrees. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4) ("[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."). Plaintiff is ordered to admit to the authenticity of
any page that Plaintiff admits is an authentic page from SCDC records, or to deny that any page is
a true and authentic copy.
-3-
Plaintiff denied requests to admit 7(b)-(f) on the basis that the records certification from
SCDC only certifies that the records are true and correct copies and is silent on the circumstances
of their creation. The Court finds that denial is proper. If Plaintiff is unwilling to stipulate, then
it is for Defendant to prove that the records were made and kept in the ordinary course of SCDC's
administration and that they were made by knowledgeable persons.
B.
Request to admit number 9
Defendant requests Plaintiff admit a summary of Plaintiff's robbery offense recorded in
SCDC records at Bates SCOTSMAN 04 7 is an accurate summary of the circumstances of the
robbery. Defendant has not provided that statement to the Court. The Court does not know who
made that summary, when that summary was made, or the circumstances under which that
summary was made. Thus, the Court has no basis to find Plaintiff's denial of the accuracy of that
statement is improper. Moreover, the probative value of the statement is rather dubious. Plaintiff
is bound by the factual statement given at his plea colloquy, not by notes in prison records.
C.
Requests to admit number 10 and 11
Defendant requests Plaintiff admit that he tied up the Winn-Dixie manager, took his keys,
and robbed the store. Defendant also requests Plaintiff admit that he planned to rob the store
manager and that he had been hiding and lying in wait for the store to close so he could rob it.
Those are factual statements contained in the prison records addressed in request to admit number
9.
Plaintiff denies the requests without qualification.
The basis for the unqualified denial
necessarily is that Plaintiff says he did not do what Defendant says he did. Plaintiff has denied the
accuracy of the source of this information and he denies these statements in particular. It is unclear
what further basis or evidence Defendant thinks Plaintiff has to offer.
-4-
D.
Request to admit number 13(a-t)
This request to admit is identical to request to admit number 9, except that it relates to
Charleston Police Department records instead of SCDC records. Plaintiff denies request to admit
13(b)-( e) for the same reasons Plaintiff denied request to admit 9(b )-(f) and the Court finds those
denials proper for the same reasons set forth regarding requests to admit 9(b)-(f).
Plaintiff also denies request to admit 13(a), which requests Plaintiff admit the records
provided by the Charleston Police Department records are "a true and authentic copy of City of
Charleston Police Department records." Plaintiff asserts that the cover letter from the City of
Charleston only states that the documents at issue are "copies" of "Investigative Reports" and
"Arrest Report" without using the magic words "true and authentic." (See Dkt. No. 38-4.) The
Court finds the basis for Plaintiffs denial of request to admit 13(a) is unreasonably facile. The
signed cover letter from the North Charleston Police Department, stating that the records are being
produced in response to a subpoena, clearly intends to convey that the copies are authentic.
Moreover, it is very unlikely that a police department gave false records in response to a federal
subpoena. If Plaintiff believes the records are false or defective in some other way, he must explain
why. The Court therefore orders Plaintiff either to admit to request number 13(a) or to provide a
good-faith basis for the denial.
E.
Request to admit number 15, 16, and 18
Defendant requests Plaintiff admit that he robbed the Winn-Dixie while wearing a towel
with eyeholes to conceal his face and while concealing an item which he intended others to believe
to be a gun. Defendant also requests Plaintiff admit that when robbing the store, he ordered one
person to tie up another person before Plaintiff himself tied up the first person. Plaintiff answers
with unqualified denials. The basis for the unqualified denials necessarily is that Plaintiff says he
-5-
did not do what Defendant says he did. It is unclear what further basis or evidence Defendant
thinks Plaintiff has to offer.
F.
Request to admit number 17
Defendant requests Plaintiff admit that he stole over $20,000 from the Winn-Dixie.
Plaintiff denied the request, but in response to the motion to compel has agreed to amend the
answer from "Denied" to "Plaintiff does not know the amount in question and therefore does not
admit or deny the Request." The motion to compel is moot as to this request for admission.
IV.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Williams Scotsman's motion to compel is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Court GRANTS the motion as to requests
to admit numbers 9(a) and 13(a), DENIES AS MOOT the motion as to request for admission
number 17, and otherwise DENIES the motion.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
Richard Mark er el
United States Distr ct Court Judge
June l""l...., 2018
Charleston, South Carolina
-6-
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?