Opinion
02-CV-6155(T).
November 19, 2004
ORDER
Plaintiff the Unites States of America (the "Government") brings this action against, inter alia, defendants Ervin Smalls, his wife Frances Smalls and his sister Dora Smalls (collectively the "Smalls defendants"), seeking to recover outstanding tax liability allegedly owed by defendants Ervin and Frances Smalls. The Government also requests a judgment of forfeiture against real property allegedly owned by the Smalls defendants and located at 15 Wait Street, City of Rochester, State of New York.
The time for discovery ended on August 5, 2004, and on that date, the Government filed a motion for summary judgment against the Smalls defendants, based primarily on the Smalls defendants' failure to respond to the Government's Requests for Admissions which were due on May 23, 2004. The Government argues that, pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the unanswered Requests for Admissions should be deemed admitted, and therefore, there exists no question of material fact which would preclude judgment in the Government's favor. However, on October 18, 2004, the Smalls defendants filed a cross-motion to withdraw the admissions and extend the time for discovery. For the reasons explained below, the Government's motion is denied without prejudice and the Smalls defendants' cross-motion is granted.
Pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, one party may, in the course of discovery, serve upon another party a written request for admissions "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." FED.R.CIV.P. 36(a). The party receiving the request has thirty days from receipt of the request to either answer or object. Id. Should that party fail to answer or object within the thirty days, the matter is deemed admitted and is considered conclusively established. Id.
The Government served its Requests for Admissions on the Smalls defendants on April 23, 2004. Accordingly, the Smalls defendants had until May 23, 2004 to answer or object to the Government's Requests before the content of those Requests would be deemed admitted. The Smalls defendants failed to respond to the Government's Requests, timely or otherwise. Therefore, the statements contained in the Government's Requests for Admissions are considered admitted.
Nonetheless, a court may permit withdrawal of an admission where: (1) the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved by the admission; and (2) "the party who obtained the admission fails to satisfy the court that withdrawal or amendment will prejudice that party in maintaining the action or defense on the merits." FED.R.CIV.P. 36(b).
Here, given the drastic nature of summary judgment and the preference for resolving a case based on its merits rather than technical grounds, I find that justice would be served by denying the Government's motion for summary judgment at this time. A significant aspect of this matter involves the intent of the Smalls defendants, namely whether Dora Smalls is a nominee for Ervin and Frances Smalls with regard to the subject property. An issue of intent such as this is particularly ill-suited for decision by a motion for summary judgment. See Leberman v. John Blair Company, 880 F.2d 1555, 1560 (2d Cir. 1993) ("Summary judgment is notoriously inappropriate for determination of claims in which issues of intent, good faith and other subjective feelings play dominant roles.").
In addition, I find that a brief extension of time for discovery would not prejudice the Government since little time has elapsed since the close of discovery. Accordingly, the Smalls defendants are granted a brief extension of time in which to respond to the Government's Requests for Admissions. That said, the Smalls defendants are forewarned that no further extensions of time will be granted in this matter.
It is hereby ordered that: (1) the Smalls defendants shall have until December 3, 2004 to respond to the Government's Requests for Admissions; (2) the Government's motion for summary judgment is denied without prejudice; and (3) the parties are directed to contact Magistrate Judge Marian Payson by December 5, 2004, to establish a revised and detailed discovery plan and deadlines.
ALL OF THE ABOVE IS SO ORDERED.