Nagle v. York

Background

David F. Nagle served Thomas A. York with Requests for Admissions Nos. 3 through 6. Because York did not respond on time, the requests were deemed admitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a). York later served proposed amended responses. He admitted the total amount of indebtedness owed to Nagle but denied that he was personally responsible for the debt, that he transferred Nagle’s investment to new bonds without advising him, and that he personally redeemed those bonds to invest the funds in a mortgage on real property.

Nagle asserted claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against Advance Management LLC, and claims for breach of fiduciary duty and conversion against York and Advance Management. The parties agreed that whether and to what extent York was personally liable for the debt was a case-dispositive issue. Fact discovery had closed, and trial was scheduled to begin December 9, 2021.

Legal standard

Under Rule 36(b), a court may allow a party to withdraw or amend an admission if doing so would promote presentation of the case’s merits and would not prejudice the requesting party’s ability to maintain or defend the action on the merits. Because the rule is permissive, the court may also consider other factors, including the reason for the delay and the apparent strength of the case.

Court’s analysis

The court found that allowing York to withdraw and amend the admissions would promote presentation of the merits because it would permit evidence about the disputed issue of York’s personal liability. The court also found that Nagle had not shown sufficient prejudice. Nagle argued that he had relied on the admissions and therefore did not pursue additional discovery, but he did not identify what discovery he would have sought or obtained. The court noted that Nagle had chosen not to move to compel documents and had not scheduled York’s deposition, at least partly because he expected the case might settle.

The court rejected York’s explanation that settlement discussions justified his delay. It stated that York was not free to disregard the court’s discovery deadlines without seeking relief. The court nevertheless concluded that York’s conduct did not require denial of his request. Instead, it provided Nagle a remedy by reopening discovery.

Disposition

The court permitted York to withdraw his deemed admissions and amend his responses to Nagle’s Requests for Admissions Nos. 3 through 6. At Nagle’s election, York was required to appear for an in-person or video deposition within 14 days of the order, unless the parties agreed to another date. The deposition could not exceed seven hours. York was required to pay the deposition’s reasonable costs, while each party would bear its own attorney’s fees. The parties could supplement their pretrial disclosures if necessary to account for information from the deposition.