Belgrove v. Bronner
- Denise Cote
- 1:21-cv-09545
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Belgrove v. Bronner, defense counsel asked Judge Cote to excuse the Bronners from answering 252 requests for admission; the text contains no ruling.
The defendants Gregory Roche Bronner and Nellie Anne Bronner, who sought to avoid responding to 252 requests for admission, and the plaintiff Collata Belgrove, whose requests were challenged.
What happened
In Belgrove v. Bronner, the defendants asked the court to excuse them from responding to 252 requests for admission served by the plaintiff’s counsel at the beginning of discovery.
The defendants’ letter argued that the requests were excessive, included irrelevant matters and legal issues, and improperly sought information better obtained through depositions and document requests. The defendants said they would answer a reasonable number of appropriate requests.
The provided text is a letter requesting relief, not a court ruling. It does not state that the request was granted or denied by Judge Denise L. Cote.
The detailed version
- Belgrove v. Bronner · No. 1:21-cv-09545
- Denise Cote
- Feb. 22, 2022
Nature of the filing
The provided text is a February 22, 2022 letter from counsel for the defendants to Judge Denise L. Cote. It asks the court to excuse the defendants from responding to 252 requests for admission served by the plaintiff’s counsel. The text does not include a judicial order or state how the court ruled on the request.
Arguments in the letter
The defendants’ counsel argued that the number of requests was disproportionate to the needs of the case and that serving them at the start of discovery was improper. Counsel characterized the requests as an effort to avoid limits on interrogatories and as part of an alleged effort to increase litigation costs and pressure a settlement.
The letter also argued that the requests addressed the central factual dispute, irrelevant background matters, a withdrawn counterclaim, and legal issues. As an example, it identified requests about the setup of the Bronners’ home, while stating that the plaintiff had separately requested an inspection of the premises. Counsel further argued that some requests required explanations or qualifications rather than a simple admission or denial, making depositions and document discovery more appropriate.
Requested relief and disposition
The defendants said they would respond to a reasonable number of requests seeking facts actually known to them at an appropriate time, but asked to be excused from responding to the 252 requests then pending. The provided text contains no ruling by Judge Cote, so no disposition can be reported.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.