29 F.R.D. 512 | W.D. Pa. | 1962
In this action the defendants, without filing an answer to the complaint, moved for summary judgment with supporting affidavit; the plaintiffs did not file any opposing affidavits. At the hearing it seemed that none of the material facts were in dispute and the case was ripe for decision. Subsequently, however, defendants without leave of court, filed another supporting affidavit; plaintiffs,
Upon further reflection I am of the opinion that the deposition of Mr. Pease should be considered, and that defendants should answer those Requests for Admissions which are proper. I can find no authority, and none has been called to my attention, which would limit discovery and prohibit service of a Request for Admissions subsequent to the hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment; indeed, subsection (f) of Rule 56 indicates rather strongly that a decision should be continued in order to permit parties opposing the motion to take depositions and have discovery of facts essential to justify their opposition.
In passing upon defendants’ objections to the Request for Admissions, I have in mind that Rule 36 was not intended to be used to cover the entire case.
Requests 1, 7, 18 and 20 involve legal issues and interpretation of statutes; Request 32 may involve interpretation of a regulation or a statute. Requests 4, 5, 11, 12 and 13 involve the effect of or interpretation of the provisions of a document, the Plan for Redevelopment and its modifications. Request 17 seems to call on defendants to admit the interpretation of a proposed construction contract with respect to the height and location of a building on Parcel B as shown by the Plan. Requests 6, 14, 23, 26, 31 and 33 involve interpretation of documents, letters and communications not attached to the Request for Admissions. Requests 9 and 19 call for opinions, conclusions and speculation about the future.
All other Requests shall be admitted or denied.
An appropriate order will be entered.
. Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., vol. 4, ¶36.04, p. 2711.
. People of California v. The Jules Fribourg, 19 F.R.D. 432 (N.D.Cal.S.D. 1955).
. Johnstone v. Cronlund, 25 F.R.D. 42 (E.D.Pa.1960).
. Cf. Driver v. Gindy Manufacturing Corporation, 24 F.R.D. 473 (E.D.Pa.1959); Moumdjis v. SS The Ionian Trader, 157 F.Supp. 319 (E.D.Va.1957); Fuhr v. Newfoundland-St. Lawrence Shipping Ltd., Panama, 24 F.R.D. 9 (S.D.N.1959).
. Driver v. Gindy Manufacturing Corporation, supra f.n. 4, 24 F.R.D. at p. 475.