Opinion
Civil Action No. 99-3456, Section "N".
July 11, 2000.
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant Coastal Oil Gas USA, L.P.'s Motion for Summary Judgment. For the following reasons, Defendant's Motion is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
On November 15, 1999, Plaintiff Sammy Ordoyne ("Ordoyne") brought this claim in federal court, alleging that he was injured on a barge owned by McDermott, Inc. ("McDermott") while installing a platform owned by Coastal Oil Gas USA, L.P. ("Coastal").
On May 8, 2000, Coastal served Ordoyne with its discovery requests, including requests for admissions. Mem. at 2. On June 13, 2000, having received no response, Coastal contacted Ordoyne's counsel and pointed out that the responses were overdue. Id. When Coastal filed its
Motion for Summary judgment on June 26, 2000, Ordoyne had still not served his responses. Coastal argues that its May 8 requests are deemed admitted and that it is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. In his opposition, Ordoyne's attorney avers that he forwarded all discovery responses to Coastal on June 29, 2000. Mem. Opp'n at 1-2.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). A genuine issue of fact exists where the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The party seeking summary judgment bears the burden of demonstrating an absence of evidence to support the non-movant's case. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the opposing party bears the burden of proof at trial, the moving party need not submit evidentiary documents to properly support its motion, but need only point out the absence of evidence supporting the essential elements of the opposing party's case. See Saunders v. Michelin Tire Corp., 942 F.2d 299, 301 (5th Cir. 1991). To oppose a motion for summary judgment, the non-movant must set forth specific facts to establish a genuine issue of material fact and cannot merely rest on allegations and denials. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. Factual controversies are to be resolved in favor of the non-moving party. See Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994).
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a), a request for admission is deemed admitted unless the party to which the request is directed responds within thirty days. See FED. R. Civ. P. 36(a). In the present case, Coastal's requests were deemed admitted when Ordoyne failed to respond by June 7, 2000. An admission resulting from a failure to respond cannot be amended or withdrawn except by leave of court after noticed motion. See FED. R. Civ. P. 36(b); 999 v. C.I.T. Corp., 776 F.2d 866, 869. Ordoyne has not moved to withdraw his admissions, but in the interest of judicial economy, the Court will treat Ordoyne's opposition memorandum as a motion to withdraw his admissions.
Trial courts "are advised to be cautious in exercising their discretion to permit withdrawal of an admission." 8A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, ARTHUR R. MILLER AND RICHARD L. MARCUS, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: CIVIL 2D § 2264 (2d ed. 1994). However "there are constitutional limitations upon the power of courts to dismiss an action without affording a party the opportunity for a hearing on the merits of his cause." Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles et Cornmerciales, S.A. v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197, 209 (1958).
Ordoyne will be permitted to withdraw his admissions only if the Court finds that withdrawal will aid in the presentation of the merits and will not prejudice the requesting party. See FED. R. Civ. P. 36(b); Reyes v. Vantage Steamship Co., 672 F.2d 556, 557 (5th Cir. 1982). Obviously, allowing Ordoyne to withdraw his admissions will aid in the presentation of the merits. Furthermore, Coastal will not be prejudiced simply by having to prove the previously admitted fact; some increased difficulty must be shown. See Farr Man Co. v. M/V Rozita, 903 F.2d 871, 876 (1st Cir. 1990).
Since Ordoyne meets the criteria of Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(b) for granting withdrawal and since refusing to allow withdrawal would be tantamount to dismissing Ordoyne's claim, the Court will Ordoyne to substitute his admissions with his responses of June 29, 2000.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Coastal Oil Gas U.S.A., L.P.'s motion for summary Judgment is DENIED.