Solid State Elevator Corporation v. Arcbest Corp.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:20-cv-02419
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Solid State Elevator v. ABF Freight, Judge Wang denied ABF’s application but allowed a limited deposition about disputed admissions.
Solid State Elevator Corporation and ABF Freight System, Inc.; the ruling addressed their discovery dispute and permitted ABF to take a limited organizational deposition of Solid State.
What happened
Solid State Elevator Corporation sued ABF Freight System, Inc. in a dispute involving an elevator-machine shipment. During discovery, ABF challenged Solid State’s answers to requests asking it to admit or deny facts about arranging transportation, unloading the machine, and possible delay penalties.
ABF asked the court to treat several matters as admitted because it said Solid State’s answers did not provide the requested supporting facts. The disputed requests concerned whether Solid State authorized or knew about the transportation arrangements, asked the delivery driver to unload the machine, and notified others about possible construction-delay penalties.
The court denied ABF’s application to deem those matters admitted. It allowed ABF to take a deposition of Solid State under the federal rule governing depositions of organizations, limited to the issues in Requests for Admission 9, 10, 31, and 35 through 37. Judge Ona T. Wang also stated that the court would not consider further briefing about those requests.
The detailed version
- Solid State Elevator Corporation v. Arcbest Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-02419
- Ronnie Abrams
- June 10, 2021
Background
ABF Freight System, Inc. served Solid State Elevator Corporation with requests for admission and related interrogatories. The interrogatories asked Solid State to identify the facts supporting any denial. The requests at issue were numbers 9, 10, 31, and 35 through 37.
The requests concerned three groups of facts: whether Solid State authorized Hollister-Whitney Elevator Corporation to arrange interstate transportation of the shipment or knew that Hollister-Whitney would do so; whether a Solid State representative asked ABF’s driver to unload the elevator machine at the New York City construction site; and whether Solid State failed to tell Hollister-Whitney, GlobalTranz, or ABF before shipment that it could incur a construction-delay penalty.
ABF argued that Solid State’s answers remained evasive and did not provide the factual support required for its denials. The opinion identifies Solid State’s cited answers as statements that it purchased the goods, that ABF’s driver unloaded the machine, and that delay penalties were standard industry practice.
ABF’s Application
ABF moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(6), which allows a court to determine whether an answer to a request for admission is sufficient. ABF asked the court to deem the matters admitted. The opinion states that Rule 36 permits a court finding an answer insufficient either to order that the matter be admitted or to require an amended answer.
Ruling
The court’s endorsed order states: “Application DENIED.” It did not deem the identified matters admitted. Instead, the order allowed ABF to take a deposition of Solid State under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), the rule for deposing an organization through designated representatives. The deposition had to occur by June 30, 2021, and was limited to the issues raised in Requests for Admission 9, 10, 31, and 35 through 37. The court stated that it would not consider further briefing regarding those requests. The order was signed by Judge Ona T. Wang.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.