Opinion
No. 00 C 1532.
January 19, 2001.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Security Insurance Company of Hartford a/s/o Motorola, Inc.'s ("Motorola") Motion to Deem Plaintiff's Request to Admit No. 23 to Defendants DHL Admitted Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a) ("Motion to Admit"). For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Motorola's Motion to Admit.
On or about August 12, 2000, Plaintiff served Defendants with Requests to Admit pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a). Paragraph 23 of Plaintiff's Requests to Admit stated as follows:
23. Do you admit that the subject shipment(s) was stolen by unknown persons after DHL released the subject shipment to Ciesta and/or Cellular Express.
On September 8, 2000, DHL responded, in pertinent part, that, "DHL denies any knowledge regarding what occurred with respect to the shipments after they were released by DHL and therefore denies it knows whether or not `the subject shipment(s) was stolen by unknown persons.'"
Plaintiff asserts that Defendants' answer to Request to Admit No. 23 is deficient (and therefore should be admitted), because it does not state the requisite language in Rule 36(a), that the party made a "reasonable inquiry" and that "the information known or readily obtainable by the party is insufficient to enable the party to admit or deny." Rule 36(a) of the F.R.C.P.
Even if the Court were to agree that Defendants' answer did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 36(a), by not tracking word-for-word the aforementioned quoted language, Defendants corrected this alleged deficiency on September 12, 2000 — only one day after Plaintiff's Motion to Admit was filed with the Court.
Despite the detailed briefs on both sides, the issue before the Court boils down to the following: Should the Court allow Defendants' amended response (to Plaintiff's Request to Admit No. 23) to cure the technical deficiencies raised in Plaintiff's Motion to Admit? Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly states that, "[i]f the court determines that an answer does not comply with the requirements of this rule, it may order either that the matter is admitted or that an amended answer be served." Rule 36(a) of F.R.C.P.;(emphasis added). In this case, Defendants timely corrected the alleged deficiency one day after it was brought to their attention by Plaintiff's Motion to Admit, the present Motion before the Court. Rule 36 is not a trap for the unwary. Under these circumstances — where Defendants timely corrected the alleged deficiency — the Court does not even need to determine whether Defendants' initial response to Request to Admit No. 23 was truly deficient, as Plaintiff alleges.
Defendants argue that they had, indeed, made a good faith attempt to answer Request to Admit No. 23 in their initial response, but since knowledge of the events discussed in Request to Admit No. 23 rested with third parties, they could not answer the Request to Admit. Plaintiff's argument that Defendants had, essentially, already answered Request to Admit No. 23 in a September 15, 1999 letter from Paula R. Berkeley — and were only trying to increase litigation costs by not answering Request to Admit No. 23 — is unavailing. As pointed out by Defendants, Ms. Berkeley's letter merely stated that there was a "hijacking" of the shipment. She did not state that "unknown persons" stole the shipment. Arguably, the term "unknown persons" is ambiguous because, perhaps, the Mexican authorities know who the perpetrators are. The overriding point, that Defendants have been trying to make, is that they have insufficient knowledge as to whom the perpetrators are, because the reported hijacking was perpetrated on a trucking company not associated with Defendants.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Admit is denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
Plaintiff's Motion to Admit, and the same hereby is, DENIED.