Opinion
Case No: 2:02-CV-1209 DAK
December 15, 2003
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendant Utah County moves this court for summary judgment at under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has responded to the motion, and Defendant filed a reply. After reviewing the memoranda submitted by the parties, the f acts of this case, and the relevant law, the court now enters this Order granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment for the reasons outlined below.
Combined Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum, filed October 23, 2003, docket no. 44-1.
Response to Motion for Summary Judgment, filed November 12, 2003, docket no. 52-1.
Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, filed November 20, 2003, docket no. 53-1.
Defendant's motion for summary judgment is based upon Plaintiffs failure to respond to Defendant's request for admissions, served on September 4, 2003. The request for admissions included explicit instructions that Plaintiff was required to object, admit or deny the admissions within thirty (30) days of service pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The request included the following admissions:
Docket no. 37-1.
Exhibit to Notice of Admissions, filed October 22, 2003, docket no. 43-1.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: For each incident in your Amended Complaint, admit that Utah County did not violate your civil rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admit that the policies and procedures in place with regard to conducing security screening at the Utah County Courthouse do not violate your civil rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Admit that Defendant, acting through law enforcement officials, acted in accordance with Utah law when requesting you to identify yourself.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Admit that none of the pat-down or metal detector wand searches conducted on you by security personnel at the Utah County Courthouse about which you complain and which you refer to in your Amended Complaint, were done with the intention of sexual assault.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: For each incident in your Amended Complaint in which you allege a deprivation of civil rights or other injury, admit that you failed to cooperate with law enforcement officers when they asked you to identify yourself.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: For each incident alleged in your Amended Complaint, admit that law enforcement officers did not single you out for the sole purpose of harassment.
Id.
On October 17, 2003, Defendant filed a Notice of Admissions when Plaintiff failed to answer or object to the admissions within allotted the thirty days. Plaintiff reacted to the notice of admissions, filing several papers, some of which include requests to amend the admissions or for additional time to respond to the admissions pursuant to Rule 36(b). In each of these responses, however, Plaintiff fails to make any showing that "withdrawal or amendment" of the admissions would subserve "the presentation of the merits of the action."
Docket no. 40-1.
Request for protective order and tolling of time to respond to request for admissions and alternatively a chance to amend admissions under FRCP Rule 36(b), filed October 21, 2003, docket nos. 42-1, 42-2, 42-3; Response to notice o `admissions, filed October 27, 2003, docket no. 46-1; Amended Response to notice of admissions, filed November 12, 2003, docket no. 51-1; Response to Defendant's Corrections to Misstatements of Fact in Plaintiffs Response to Note of Admissions, filed November 24, 200:, docket no. 55-1; Combined Reply re: Request for Sanctions + Motion to Toll time to respond to admissions Or alternatively to Amend admissions under Rule 36b, filed November 24, 2003, docket no. 56-1.
"Any matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission." Fed R. Civ. P. 36(b).
Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(b).
Further, Plaintiff admits that he deliberately did not answer the request for admissions. He says he took that approach because Defendant had not yet responded to his discovery request. Plaintiff says he did not intend to answer the request for admissions until Defendant answered his previously requested discovery. Plaintiff employed this strategy at hi 5 own peril.
Plaintiffs failure to timely respond to Defendant's request for admissions triggered Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states: "The matter [requested] is admitted unless, within 30 days after service of the request, . . . the party to wham the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a written answer or objection addressed to the matter, signed by the party or by the party's attorney." There is no rule which excuses Plaintiff from answering Defendant's request for admissions until Plaintiff receives answers to his discovery requests.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a).
Furthermore, Plaintiff and Defendant had been in contact regarding Defendant's delay in responding to Plaintiffs discovery requests and the need to obtain the appropriate signatures before all requested discovery could be provided. Defendant responded to Plaintiffs discovery requests on September 22, 2003, well before the discovery deadline set in the scheduling order entered in this case.
See Defendant's Correction to Misstatement of Fact in Plaintiffs Response to Notice of Admissions, Exhibit C, docket no. 48-1; Plaintiffs Response to Defendants' Corrections to Misstatements of Fact in Plaintiffs Response to Note of Admissions, Exhibit A, docket no. 55-1.
Certificate of Service, docket no. 38-1.
Discovery Cutoff date 10/31/03, Scheduling Order, entered January 31, 2003, docket no. 14-1.
Plaintiff also argues that his [third] amended complaint superceded the request for admissions, thereby rendering the request for admissions moot. Plaintiff admits that this assertion is made without legal authority or citation to any rule of law, and this court is unable find any legal support for this argument. Apparently, Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint without leave of the court as required by Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and then served it upon Defendant. Even if the court had granted Plaintiffs motion to amend, it would have had no effect upon the ongoing discovery. Consequently, Plaintiff was still obligated to timely respond to the request for admissions.
Docket no. 42-1 at 3.
Id.
A party may amend the complaint once before a responsive pleading is served. After that, "a party may amend the party's pleading only by leave of he court or by written consent of the adverse party." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a).
Docket no. 42-1 at 3.
In further support of his argument against the effect of the admissions, Plaintiff contends that he lost portions of the request for admissions, and emailed Defendant's counsel for replacement copies. However, his email request came after the thirty day period in which the responses were due. Defendant correctly points out that the admissions were already ten days overdue, and therefore the matters were already deemed admitted pursuant to Rule 36(a).
See Copy of email correspondence dated 10/16/03, attached as Exhibit C to Defendant's Correction to Misstatement of Fact in Plaintiffs Response to Notice of Admissions, docket no. 48-1.
The matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after service of the request, . . . the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a written answer or objection address to the matter, signed by the party or by the party's attorney." Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a).
Finally, Plaintiff now asserts that each of the requested admissions is too vague or ambiguous to answer, Under Rule 36(a), Plaintiff is required to make a good faith effort to answer the requested admissions, or to a timely objection to the admission, In this case, he did neither. Furthermore, upon the court's review of the requested admissions, they appear clear and unambiguous.
See Amended Response to notice of admissions, docket no. 51-1; Response to Motion for Summary Judgment, docket no. 52-1.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a).
In the end, Plaintiff has failed to offer a credible excuse for not responding to the request for admissions, and fails to give any basis to deny them effect. Indeed, Plaintiff admits that he deliberately refused to answer the request for admissions until he felt his discovery request had been satisfied. This tactic is simply not permitted by Rule 36. The unanswered requests for admissions are deemed admitted, and Plaintiffs various motions to toll the time to respond or amend the admissions are DENIED.
Id. See also Bergemann v. United States, 820 F.2d 1117, 1120 (10th Cir. 1987); Rainbolt v. Johnson, 669 F.2d 767, 768 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
Docket nos. 42-2, 42-3, 56-1.
Summary judgment is appropriate if "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." "Further, a summary judgment may be based on a matter deemed admitted." By his failure to respond to the request for admissions, Plaintiff admitted that Defendant did not violate his civil lights or do any other acts upon which any federal claim would be predicated. These admissions are fatal to Plaintiffs federal causes of action, and Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on those claims as a matter of law. As no federal claims remain in this lawsuit, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Anthony v. United States, 987 F.2d 670, 672 (10th Cir. 1993).
Sunergy Communities, Inc. v. Aristek Properties, Ltd., 535 F. Supp. 1327, 1332 (D. Colo. 1982); Home Indemnity Co. v. Famularo, Inc., 530 F. Supp. 797, 799 (D. Colo. 1982).
See Request for Admissions, attached as exhibit A to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, docket no. 44-1.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [no. 44-1] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Complaint [no. 44-1] is DENIED, as moot.
2. Plaintiffs Motion for a Protective Order [no. 42-1] is DENIED, as moot.
3. Plaintiffs Motion to Toll time to Respond to Request for Admissions [no. 42-2] is DENIED.
4. Plaintiffs Alternative Motion to Amend Admissions [no. 42-3] is DENIED.
5. Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions [no. 45-1] is DENIED, as moot,
6. Plaintiffs Second Motion to Toll Time to Respond to Admissions or Alternatively to Amend Admissions [no, 56-1] is DENIED,
7. Plaintiffs Motion to Strike or in the Alternative Leave to File Response to Reply [nos. 58-1, 58-2] is DENIED, as moot.