- 7 -
On February 10, 2006, petitioner filed a motion for a
protective order from respondent’s discovery because “Justice
requires that the Petitioner be protected from annoyance, further
embarrassment, further undue burden and expense at least until
the Respondent provides the proof/evidence of personal
jurisdiction”. Petitioner’s motion for protective order was
denied on February 22, 2006.
Under Rule 90(c), respondent’s requests for admission are
deemed admitted unless, within 30 days of service of the request,
the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the
requesting party (1) a written answer specifically admitting or
denying the matter involved in whole or in part, or asserting
that it cannot be truthfully admitted or denied and setting forth
in detail the reasons why this is so, or (2) an objection,
stating in detail the reasons therefor. Petitioner’s response
was due on March 1, 2006. Petitioner did not respond to
respondent’s requests for admission by the deadline set forth in
Rule 90(c),10 and consequently, the matters contained therein were
deemed admitted as of March 1, 2006. See Rule 90(c); Freedson v.
10Petitioner mailed a document to this Court entitled
“Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s First Requests for
Admission”, which we received on Apr. 6, 2006. The document had
a certificate of service indicating that it had been sent to
respondent’s counsel more than a month after the deadline
established under Rule 90(c). Consequently, the document was not
filed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007