- 13 -
requirements of Rule 36(a), the district court may, in
its discretion, deem the matter admitted.* * * [Id. at
1245.3]
See also Havenfield Corp. v. H & R Block, Inc., 67 F.R.D. 93, 96-
97 (W.D. Mo. 1973).
The responses to the requests for admission that petitioner
provided pursuant to our order were evasive, incomplete, and not
made in good faith. We therefore ordered that the facts asserted
in respondent's requests be taken as established pursuant to Rule
104(c). No additional sanctions were imposed, and petitioner was
given the opportunity to present evidence at trial. Petitioner
chose not to testify and did not call any other witnesses.
3In Asea, Inc. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242,
1244 (9th Cir. 1981), the defendants responded to 18 of the
plaintiff's requests for admission as follows:
"Answering party cannot admit or deny. Said party has
made reasonable inquiry. Information known or readily
obtainable to this date is not complete. Investigation
continues."
The Court of Appeals rejected the view that a party can
avoid the admission or denial of a proper request for admission
simply by "tracking" the language of Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a):
We are not persuaded that an answer to a request
for admission necessarily complies with Rule 36(a)
merely because it includes a statement that the party
has made reasonable inquiry and that the information
necessary to admit or deny the matter is not readily
obtainable by him. The discovery process is subject to
the overriding limitation of good faith. * * * [Id. at
1246.]
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011