Freeman v. City of Detroit
274 F.R.D. 610
E.D. Mich.2011Background
- Freeman moved to deem admissions by Napier in a civil case
- Napier’s counsel contends he was never properly served with the Requests for Admission
- Freeman allegedly served 57 requests on July 7, 2010 with 30-day response deadline
- Defendant’s counsel received an electronic copy on September 21, 2010; service by email requires written consent
- Napier responded on October 12, 2010; discovery deadlines and scheduling orders governed timing
- Court denied motion, finding improper service and untimely filing under scheduling orders
- Unsigned “proof of service” claimed delivery to City Law Department on July 10, 2010 was not received by counsel and is irrelevant to service effectiveness
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of motion to deem admissions | Freeman argues timely under scheduling order deadlines | Napier argues untimely due to discovery deadline and motion deadline | Denied: motion filed after deadlines; admissions not deemed |
| Proper service of Requests for Admission | Requests were served July 7, 2010 | No proper service; emails not accepted without consent; defense never received prior emails | Denied: service not properly effected during discovery |
| Effect of untimely admissions under Rule 36 | Default admissions would eliminate contested issues | Withdrawals possible if no prejudice; timeliness not satisfied | Denied: even if timely, no prejudice shown and withdrawal not warranted given completed discovery |
| Prejudice to plaintiff from withdrawal of admissions | Access to admissions would streamline case | No prejudice shown; merits must be proven; discovery completed | Denied: no prejudice to Plaintiff; case must proceed on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Misco, Inc. v. United States Steel Corp., 784 F.2d 198 (6th Cir. 1986) (district court has broad discretion in regulating discovery; excessive admissions improper)
- Jarvis v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 161 F.R.D. 337 (N.D. Miss. 1995) (Rule 36 subject to deadlines and its place under discovery rules)
- St. Regis Paper Co. v. Upgrade Corp., 86 F.R.D. 355 (W.D. Mich. 1980) (court may allow withdrawal of admissions to aid orderly presentation of case)
- O’Neill v. Medad, 166 F.R.D. 19 (E.D. Mich. 1996) (rules for withdrawal/amendment of admissions; prejudice and merits considerations)