Marta Ramirez, as Personal Representative and Heir of Ronald Monroy v. Noble Energy, Inc., 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 4561

Ronald Monroy (truck driver) sued Noble Energy and J&R Express for negligence after a steel plate allegedly struck his leg while unloading a truck at Noble’s facility.
Noble served 11 requests for admission on September 3, 2015; responses were due October 5, 2015. Monroy failed to timely respond.
The trial court granted Noble’s motion to compel and ordered responses by November 5, 2015; Monroy served responses on November 6, 2015.
Noble moved for summary judgment relying on the deemed admissions (including that Noble was not a proper party and did not own the truck) and attached Monroy’s late responses as evidence.
The trial court denied Monroy’s motion to withdraw the deemed admissions, denied Noble’s sanctions motion, and granted Noble summary judgment; Monroy died during the proceedings and his personal representative, Marta Ramirez, appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying withdrawal of deemed admissions	Monroy (Ramirez) argued the late responses were due to clerical mistake (assistant turnover), not conscious indifference, and withdrawal would not prejudice Noble	Noble argued the admissions were deemed, Monroy’s responses were late/inadequate, and withdrawal should be denied	Court held denial was erroneous: many deemed admissions were merits-preclusive and Noble failed to show flagrant bad faith or callous disregard by Monroy
Whether Noble was entitled to traditional summary judgment based on the deemed admissions	Monroy argued summary judgment based on merits-preclusive deemed admissions is improper absent showing of flagrant bad faith; actual admissions did not negate negligence elements	Noble argued deemed admissions established it was not a proper defendant and had no responsibility for the injury, entitling it to judgment	Court reversed summary judgment: Noble did not meet its burden to show flagrant bad faith and the remaining actual admissions did not conclusively negate negligence

Wheeler v. Green, 157 S.W.3d 439 (per curiam) (standard for withdrawal: accident or mistake vs. conscious indifference)
Marino v. King, 355 S.W.3d 629 (per curiam) (due-process limits on merits-preclusive discovery sanctions)
Time Warner, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 441 S.W.3d 661 (explains when requests for admission are merits-preclusive)
Boulet v. State, 189 S.W.3d 833 (clerical error can establish good cause for withdrawal)
In re Sewell, 472 S.W.3d 449 (presumption that admissions are merits-preclusive unless record affirmatively shows otherwise)
Medina v. Raven, 492 S.W.3d 53 (movant relying on merits-preclusive admissions must show flagrant bad faith or callous disregard)
TransAmerican Nat. Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913 (sanctions precluding presentation of merits require flagrant bad faith)
Amedisys, Inc. v. Kingwood Home Health Care, LLC, 437 S.W.3d 507 (summary judgment must stand on movant’s proof; non-movant’s failure to respond cannot supply proof)