Cook v. Blazer et al

Filing 162

ORDER denying 158 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 7/23/18. (sas)

CLERK'$ opr;IOE U.B. 1,}1$'1", COURT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION

AT

RO~t~~~. VA

JUL 2 3 2018

J~LIAC.
DU
, CLE. t(l
R
BY:
./
)
·
U
LE
)
) Civil Action No. 7:15cv456
)
)
) By: Hon. Michael F. Urbanski
) Chief United States District Judge
)

RACHAEL L. COOK,
Plaintiff,

v.
SCOTT MCQUATE,
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter comes before the court on plaintiff Rachael L. Cook's Motion Seeking
Reconsideration of Order of this Court Denying Plaintiffs Motion for New Trial (the
"Motion"), ECF No. 158. Cook argues that Defendant Scott McQuate failed to respond to a
request for admissions by the deadline, triggering an automatic admission under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 36(a)(3). Cook bases her Motion on the court's failure to allow Cook to
introduce the purported admissions at trial.
Cook previously based a motion for summary judgment on the same purported
admissions. Mot. Default]. & Summ. J., ECF No. 74. The magistrate judge considered
Cook's argument, and while he ultimately recommended denying summary judgment on
other grounds, he noted that unpublished decisions in the Fourth Circuit "have allowed late
responses or a motion for extension of time to serve as the functional equivalent of a motion
under Rule 36(b)." R. & R., ECF No. 106, at 4 n.6 (quoting Estate of Jones v. City of
Martinsburg, W.V., 655 F. App'x 948, 949-50 (4th Cir. 2016)) . The court adopted the Report
& Recommendation in its entirety. Order, ECF No. 114. The court still agrees with the

magistrate judge: Allowing the late admissions to serve as the functional equivalent of a
motion to withdraw the automatic admissions "promote[s] the presentation of the merits of
the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b). Moreover, the court sees no prejudice to Cook in allowing
the late admissions to serve as a motion to withdraw the automatic admissions, as Cook was
aware of the contents of the late admissions for months before trial. Accordingly, the court
holds that the filing of the late admissions was the functional equivalent of a motion under
Rule 36(b), which the court grants.
Additionally, while Cook complains that McQuate untimely filed the admissions,
Cook is equally guilty of late filings. See Mot. Leave Serve Late Witness & Ex. List, ECF No.
110 (moving on January 9, 2018 to flie documents with court that were required to be flied
on January 3, 2018); Mot. Leave Late Submission Proposed Jury Instructions, ECF No. 127
(moving on January 22, 2018 to flie jury instructions with the court that were required to be
flied on January 18, 2018). The court finds that it would be inequitable to punish McQuate
for late filings while allowing Cook's late filings.
Accordingly, Cook's Motion is DENIED.

Entered: ()7 -~-;).()I~

(,/ "P/1,~ f. ~~

Michael F. Urbanski ~
ChiefUnited States Distri<;::tJudge_ _ ...---- __

2