Morgan Art Foundation Limited v. McKenzie d/b/a American Image Art
- Barbara Moses
- 1:18-cv-04438
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Morgan Art Foundation v. McKenzie, Judge Moses ordered defendants to answer most requests for admission but not requests seeking legal conclusions.
Morgan Art Foundation Limited, Michael McKenzie, American Image Art, and Jamie Thomas. The order required the AIA Defendants to answer the foundation’s requests except Requests 250 through 258, and required Thomas to answer Requests 7 through 18 and 47.
What happened
Morgan Art Foundation Limited v. McKenzie involved the foundation’s request that Michael McKenzie and American Image Art respond to requests asking them to admit facts. The requests were part of the discovery process in the case.
The defendants objected to several requests, including one they said was unclear and another that asked them to accept the foundation’s interpretation of a contract. The foundation agreed to change some requests and continued to seek answers to others.
Judge Barbara Moses ordered the defendants to answer all of the foundation’s requests except Requests 250 through 258 by June 5, 2020. She also ordered Jamie Thomas to answer Requests 7 through 18 and 47.
The detailed version
- Morgan Art Foundation Limited v. McKenzie d/b/a American Image Art · No. 1:18-cv-04438
- Barbara Moses
- May 27, 2020
Background
Morgan Art Foundation Limited asked the court to compel Michael McKenzie and American Image Art, referred to in the order as the “AIA Defendants,” to respond to its first requests for admission. A request for admission asks another party to admit or deny a stated fact or proposition. The foundation served 258 requests on March 16, 2020. The AIA Defendants initially refused to respond to any of them, citing the number of requests.
At a May 18 conference, the court ruled that the AIA Defendants did not need to answer Requests 251 through 258 and directed them to respond in writing about the remaining requests. The defendants then challenged Requests 174, 182, 183, 186, 201, 202, and 250. The foundation agreed to modify Requests 182, 186, 201, and 202. The defendants later withdrew their objection to Request 174 and agreed to answer the four modified requests. Requests 183 and 250 remained disputed.
The Disputed Requests
Request 183 asked the AIA Defendants to admit that they had published a catalogue illustrating specified Robert Indiana works and that the catalogue did not mention Morgan Art Foundation. The defendants argued that the request was vague and ambiguous because it did not identify the catalogue or each specific work. The court rejected that objection, reasoning that the request identified the relevant works by referring to the License/IP Agreement and the Sculpture Agreement, which referred to specific works and catalogues by name. The court ordered the AIA Defendants to answer Request 183.
Request 250 asked the AIA Defendants to admit that the License/IP Agreement gave Morgan Art Foundation the exclusive right to reproduce the images covered by that agreement. The court held that a request for admission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 cannot require a party to admit a legal conclusion. It concluded that Request 250 improperly asked the AIA Defendants to adopt the foundation’s interpretation of a contract to which they were not parties. The AIA Defendants therefore did not need to answer Request 250.
Ruling
Judge Barbara Moses ordered the AIA Defendants to answer all of the foundation’s requests except Requests 250 through 258 no later than June 5, 2020. The order separately directed Jamie Thomas, who did not oppose the foundation’s separate motion to compel, to promptly answer Requests 7 through 18 and 47 addressed to Thomas. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions at Docket Nos. 261 and 263.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.