Summary
This United States District Court order resolves a discovery dispute regarding a motion to compel responses to Requests for Admission. Magistrate Judge Wicks denies the motion with leave to renew, finding that the parties failed to satisfy the mandatory meet-and-confer requirement before filing the motion. The order outlines the proper scope of Requests for Admission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36, clarifying that parties must respond to factual inquiries rather than objecting to matters with legal consequences, while noting that duplicative requests may be properly objected to. The court directs the parties to engage in a good-faith meet-and-confer and submit a joint status report by early March 2025.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the parties have meaningfully met and conferred as required by Rule 37(a) and the Local Rules
- What objections to Requests for Admission are permissible under Rule 36
Holdings
- The parties must engage in a good‑faith meet and confer before filing a discovery motion; failure to do so requires the court to order the parties to meet and confer.
- A party may not object to a Request for Admission solely on the ground that the request presents a genuine issue for trial; the party must either admit, deny, or state lack of knowledge after a reasonable inquiry.
- Requests for Admission that are unreasonably cumulative or duplicative may be objected to as improper under Rule 26(b)(2)(i).
Key quotations
“This Court faces, once again, a discovery dispute in which the parties failed to meet and confer.” (at *12)
“Rule 36 is not a discovery device, this does not mean “that an RFA may only ask about matters that the propounding party believes to be undisputed.”” (at *2)
Factual background
Plaintiff, Multi-State Partnership for Prevention, LLC, sued defendants Samuel Kennedy and related entities for copyright, trademark, breach of contract, defamation, and tortious interference. The case was transferred to the Eastern District of New York, and the parties are engaged in fact discovery. A dispute arose over the defendants' answers to the plaintiff's Requests for Admission.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action on March 13, 2023; the case was transferred from the District of Maryland to this court on January 2, 2024. The parties are in fact discovery and the plaintiff moved to compel responses to Requests for Admission, which the court denied.
Remand instructions
The parties are directed to meet and confer on the Requests for Admission issues by March 7, 2025 and to file a joint status report on or before March 5, 2025. If issues remain, Plaintiff may renew its motion to compel.