From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Synthes (U.S.A.) v. Globus Medical, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Nov 29, 2006
CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-1235 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 29, 2006)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-1235.

November 29, 2006


MEMORANDUM


The defendants in this case have moved for a protective Order relieving them of all obligation to respond to the plaintiffs' third and fourth sets of requests for admissions, claiming that the sheer number of requests, their repetitiveness, and remote relevance is grossly oppressive and abusive. For the following reasons, I will deny the motion in its entirety.

The plaintiffs' first set of requests for admissions consisted of 126 requests; its second set consisted of 64 requests. The plaintiffs' first set of requests for admissions to defendant Binder had 64 requests. Defendant Globus substantively answered all of these requests. On September 25, 2006, the plaintiffs served a third set of 250 requests. On September 29, 2006, they served a fourth set of 118 requests, bringing the total number of requests for admissions to 622, a number far lower than the number of requests found excessive in the cases cited by the defendants.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may serve upon any other party a written request for the admission, for purposes of the pending action only, of the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) set forth in the request that relate to statements or opinions of fact or of the application of law to fact, including the genuineness of any documents described in the request. See FED.R.CIV.P. 36(a). Any matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission. See FED.R.CIV.P. 36(b). An admission of fact made under Rule 36 is an "unassailable statement of fact that narrows the triable issues in the case." Airco Industrial Gases, Inc. v. Teamsters Health Welfare Pension Fund, 850 F.2d 1028, 1037 (3d Cir. 1988). Requests for admission typically come late in discovery, or even after discovery has been completed and trial is imminent. Langer v. Monarch Life Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 786, 803 (3d Cir. 1992). If at that point a party is served with a request for admission of a fact that it now knows to be true, it must admit that fact, even if that admission will "gut its case and subject it to summary judgment." Id. Rule 36 was intended to narrow the issues for trial, or altogether obviate the need for trial. Id.

After a careful review of both sets of requests for admissions, I find that the requests, which span 48 pages, are simple and straightforward recitations of fact which can be readily admitted or denied, that they relate to the authenticity, possession, or use of 23 documents, and that they concern seven topics with which the defendants should be quite familiar. The slight burden or expense of responding to these requests at this late stage in the discovery process is far outweighed by the benefit of facilitating proof with respect to the issues in the case, and of narrowing its triable issues.

An appropriate Order follows.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 29th day of November, 2006, upon consideration of defendants' motion for a protective Order regarding the plaintiffs' third and fourth sets of requests for admissions (Document #161), the plaintiffs' response thereto (Document #164), and after a hearing on the motion with all parties present, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is DENIED in its entirety.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants shall respond to both sets of requests for admissions within ten (10) days of the date of this Order.


Summaries of

Synthes (U.S.A.) v. Globus Medical, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Nov 29, 2006
CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-1235 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 29, 2006)
Case details for

Synthes (U.S.A.) v. Globus Medical, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:SYNTHES (U.S.A.), et al., Plaintiffs v. GLOBUS MEDICAL, INC., et al.…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Nov 29, 2006

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-1235 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 29, 2006)