United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Collector's Coffee Inc.
- Victor Marrero
- 1:19-cv-04355
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In SEC v. Collector’s Coffee Inc., Judge Gorenstein denied Kontilai’s request to revisit the order because the admissions were automatically effective.
Mykalai Kontilai’s requests for admission remained deemed admitted, although the court identified a possible procedure for seeking their withdrawal or amendment.
What happened
In United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Collector’s Coffee Inc., Mykalai Kontilai asked the court to reconsider its January 27, 2021, order. That order found that his late responses to the SEC’s requests for admission were deemed admitted because he had not responded by the deadline.
Kontilai argued that the court had made a serious mistake by assuming his late responses were identical to earlier responses. The court agreed that assumption was incorrect, but found it was not necessary to the January ruling. The admissions were automatically effective under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 because Kontilai had not timely responded or obtained an extension.
The court denied the reconsideration motion. Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein invited Kontilai to seek withdrawal or amendment of the admissions under Rule 36(b), if he filed that application by March 22, 2021.
The detailed version
- United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Collector's Coffee Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-04355
- Victor Marrero
- Mar. 8, 2021
Background
The court’s January 27, 2021, order found that Mykalai Kontilai had not timely responded to the SEC’s requests for admission. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(3), requests for admission are automatically treated as admitted when a party does not respond by the required deadline. Kontilai moved for reconsideration of that order.
Kontilai’s Argument
Kontilai argued that reconsideration was justified because the court had incorrectly stated that his late responses were identical to his earlier responses. He contended that, if the court had known the responses differed, it might have reached a different decision. He characterized the alleged mistake as a clear error that would cause manifest injustice.
Court’s Analysis
The court agreed that it had incorrectly assumed the responses were identical. It explained, however, that the assumption resulted from Kontilai’s failure to place the responses in the record and his prior statement that he had “duplicated” them. The court also concluded that this mistake was not essential to the January 27 ruling.
The January order had an independent basis: Kontilai had not responded by the deadline established in the court’s July 6, 2020, order, and he had not obtained an extension. The court considered an October 2, 2020, letter that Kontilai might have intended as a request for more time, but found that the letter did not clearly request an extension and, even if treated as one, did not show good cause under Rule 6(b)(1). Therefore, the admissions resulted automatically from Rule 36(a)(3), regardless of the later responses.
Ruling
The court denied Kontilai’s motion for reconsideration, docketed as No. 793. The court did not rely on the incorrect assumption that the responses were duplicates, and it stated that the January 27 ruling also did not need to rely on the court’s power to impose discovery sanctions under Rule 37.
Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein invited Kontilai to file an application under Rule 36(b) to withdraw or amend the admissions. That rule permits such relief if it would promote presentation of the case’s merits and would not prejudice the requesting party in maintaining or defending the action. The court stated that any such application could be made by letter filed by March 22, 2021.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.