Nagle v. York

Background

David F. Nagle and defendants Thomas A. York and Advance Management LLC asked the court to resolve a dispute about York’s responses to Nagle’s requests for admission. A request for admission asks another party to admit or deny a stated matter.

Nagle served several requests on York on April 26, 2021. York did not respond within the required 30 days. The parties did not sign a stipulation extending the deadline, and they did not obtain a court order extending it. Fact discovery closed on September 3, 2021. York served responses on September 29, 2021, admitting Requests for Admission Nos. 1 and 2 in full and denying Nos. 3 through 6 in whole or in part, as reflected in the opinion.

Nagle sought an order establishing that all matters in the requests were admitted. York asked the court to deny Nagle’s request.

Analysis

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(3), a request for admission is deemed admitted when the responding party does not timely serve a written answer or objection. An admission is conclusively established unless the court permits the party to withdraw or amend it under Rule 36(b).

The court concluded that York’s responses were not timely. The court noted that York did not respond within 30 days, that no valid extension had been made through a stipulation or court order, and that York waited more than three weeks after fact discovery closed before responding. The court also noted that York offered no explanation for the delay other than his counsel’s belief that the matter would settle.

The court separately considered whether York had sought permission to withdraw or amend the deemed admissions. York did not clearly make such a request and did not cite Rule 36(b), although his submission discussed the importance of some requests, positions he had previously disclosed, and the lack of prejudice to Nagle. Because the parties’ submission did not provide enough information to evaluate the requirements for withdrawal or amendment, the court could not resolve that part of the dispute.

Disposition

The court concluded that York did not timely respond to Nagle’s requests for admission and that the requests were deemed admitted for purposes of Rule 36(a)(3). The court did not resolve whether York could withdraw or amend those admissions. If York seeks relief under Rule 36(b), he must immediately notify Nagle and the parties must confer. If Nagle does not agree, the parties must file a joint discovery-dispute letter with the court no later than October 20, 2021, addressing only that issue.