Sawyer v. Hannan, 556 So.2d 696 (Miss. 1990). If the plaintiff fails to communicate to the trial court a reason for the delay or a belief that they should have been allowed to delay their response, and the court can find no compelling circumstances to justify allowing an untimely reply to avoid admissions, the [c]ourt does not abuse its discretion in not allowing the admissions to be withdrawn. Earwood v. Reeves, 798 So.2d 508, 514 (Miss. 2001). Requests are deemed admitted if the answers or objections are not served within 30 days of service.
See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Johnson, 807 So.2d 382, 387 (Miss. 2001); Earwood v. Reeves, 798 So.2d 508, 513 (Miss. 2001); Forrest County Gen. Hosp. v. Conway, 700 So.2d 324, 325 (Miss. 1997).
¶ 2. The circuit court affirmed the county court's decision and found that the facts were analogous to Earwood v. Reeves, 798 So.2d 508 (Miss. 2001), and that venue was proper in either Pike County or Jones County. Braswell appeals to this Court the decision of the circuit court affirming the county court. For the following reasons, this Court affirms. FACTS
¶ 11. The trial court granted a motion for summary judgment based upon failure to timely respond to a request for admissions. The decision of the trial court in regards discovery is subject to review for abuse of discretion. Earwood v. Reeves, 798 So.2d 508, 514 (Miss. 2001). The review of an order granting summary judgment is de novo.
" Young , 67 So.3d at 739 (¶ 14). "The permissive language of [ Rule 36(b) ] respecting the trial court's duties clearly provides that relief from the definite time periods is only available at the trial court's discretion." Earwood v. Reeves , 798 So.2d 508, 515 (¶ 22) (Miss. 2001). Thus, the Dillons' argument that Rule 36(b) contains a mandatory two-pronged test is without merit.
On review of a trial court's denial of a Rule 36(b) motion, we are mindful that matters concerning discovery are within the sound discretion of the trial court. Earwood v. Reeves, 798 So.2d 508, 514 (¶ 19) (Miss. 2001). This Court will not overturn a discovery order absent an abuse of discretion.
Scoggins v. Baptist Mem'l Hosp. Desoto, 967 So.2d 646, 648 (Miss. 2007) (quoting Earwood v. Reeves, 798 So.2d 508, 516 (Miss. 2001)). ¶ 27.
"Matters of discovery are left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and discovery orders will not be disturbed unless there has been an abuse of discretion." Earwood v. Reeves, 798 So.2d 508, 514 (Miss. 2001) ( citing Dawkins v. Redd Pest Control Co., 607 So.2d 1232, 1235 (Miss. 1992)).
DISCUSSION ¶ 7. A trial court's decisions concerning discovery matters are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. DeBlanc v. Stancil, 814 So.2d 796 (Miss. 2002) (citing Earwood v. Reeves, 798 So.2d 508, 514 (Miss. 2001)). However, a grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo.
The Supreme Court has emphasized that there is no “benevolent gratuity [in] the administration of Rule 36.... Rule 36 is to be enforced according to its terms. ” Id. at 799 (¶ 14) (quoting Educ. Placement Servs. v. Wilson, 487 So.2d 1316, 1318 (Miss.1986) ). “[R]ules are promulgated for a purpose,” and litigants know or should know “the severe consequences of failing to timely respond” to requests for admission under Rule 36. Earwood v. Reeves, 798 So.2d 508, 516 (¶ 26) (Miss.2001). ¶ 13.