MeadWestvaco Corporation et al v. Rexam PLC et al
Filing
290
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER that the 272 motion is GRANTED. (see Order for details) Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas Rawles Jones, Jr on 6/14/11. (tfitz, ) Modified to edit text on 6/14/2011 (tfitz, ).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
MeadWestvaco Corporation
et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Rexam PLC
et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 1:10cv511 (GBL/TRJ)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on plaintiffs’ motion to compel (no. 272). At issue is the
refusal of defendants Valois S.A.S. and Valois of America, Inc. (collectively, “Valois”) to admit
plaintiffs’ requests for admission regarding the XRD crystallinity content of what the parties refer
to as Valois’s old tube and new tube. The parties presented arguments to the court in their briefs
and in a hearing held on May 31, 2011, as well as in supplemental briefs ordered by the court to
be filed after the deposition of Valois’s supplier. The court does not find Valois’s arguments to
be persuasive, however.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are to be “construed
and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and
proceeding.” It is clear from the record that there is no evidence to contradict plaintiffs’ evidence
that the crystallinity claims of plaintiffs’ patents read on both Valois’s old and new tubes.
Valois’s assertion that it is entitled to put plaintiffs to their proof ignores the central purpose of
the requests for admission rule, Fed. R. Civ. P. 36, in light of the principles enunciated in Fed. R.
Civ. P. 1.
The issues covered by plaintiffs’ requests for admission 20-22 and 48-50 are not seriously
in dispute. No adequate reason is shown why they should not be deemed admitted pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(6). The court finds that they should be.
It is accordingly ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.
ENTERED this 14th day of June, 2011.
/s/
Thomas Rawles Jones, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
Alexandria, Virginia
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?