Riley v. Chris Kuehne, Jr.
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:23-cv-02237
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Riley v. Kuehne, Judge Aaron granted Defendants more time, treating their late responses to admission requests as timely.
The ruling affected David Riley and Defendants Chris Kuehne, Sr., Chris Kuehne, Jr., League of International Federated Employees Local 1032, and League of International Federated Employees Life Benefit Fund. It allowed Defendants’ late responses to Riley’s requests for admissions to be treated as timely.
What happened
In Riley v. Chris Kuehne, Jr., David Riley, representing himself, brought consolidated cases alleging misconduct involving a union and negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement. Defendants included Chris Kuehne, Jr., Chris Kuehne, Sr., and two union-related entities.
Defendants’ responses to Riley’s requests for admissions were five days late because their lawyer recorded the wrong deadline. The court found that accepting the responses would help evaluate the case, would not unfairly harm Riley, and appeared to result from an understandable mistake rather than bad faith.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron granted Defendants’ motion for more time. The court deemed the responses served on September 27, 2023 timely and ruled that Defendants would not be treated as having admitted Riley’s requests because of the late response.
The detailed version
- Riley v. Chris Kuehne, Jr. · No. 1:23-cv-02237
- Stewart Aaron
- Oct. 13, 2023
Background
David Riley, who was representing himself, brought two related cases that were consolidated and removed from state court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The removal notices stated that Riley’s claims were governed by the National Labor Relations Act. Riley alleged that Chris Kuehne, Sr. was a union director, Chris Kuehne, Jr. was a union representative, Kuehne Jr. colluded with management, and the union and Kuehne Sr. breached duties to union members while negotiating a collective bargaining agreement with Shinda Management. Riley alleged that he suffered damages.
The court’s case-management plan required requests for admissions to be served by July 31, 2023. The parties later agreed that Defendants’ responses would be due September 22, 2023. Defendants’ counsel mistakenly entered September 29 as the deadline. After discovering the error, counsel prepared the responses and emailed them to Riley on September 27, five days after the agreed deadline.
Riley did not agree to extend Defendants’ response time. Defendants therefore moved under Rule 36(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for an enlargement of time. A request for admission asks another party to admit the truth of specified facts, applications of law to facts, or opinions. Under Rule 36, a matter generally is admitted if the responding party does not timely answer or object, although the court may allow a different response period.
Court’s analysis
The court considered whether allowing the late responses would promote evaluation of the case’s merits, whether Riley would suffer unfair prejudice, and whether the delay reflected bad faith. It concluded that allowing the responses would promote assessment of the merits. It also found that Riley suffered no unfair prejudice from the brief delay, which was five days or three business days. Finally, the court found counsel’s explanation—that he mistakenly calendared the due date—plausible and not evidence of bad faith by Defendants or their counsel.
Ruling
The court granted Defendants’ motion for an enlargement of time. It ordered that Defendants’ responses, served on September 27, 2023, be deemed timely and that Defendants not be deemed to have admitted Riley’s requests for admissions because of the late response. The opinion resolved the discovery-timing issue and did not decide the underlying allegations about the union, the negotiations, or Riley’s claimed damages.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.