April 14, 2006
Update to SLM No. 1: Rule 36, Requests for Admission - More Than A Discovery Tool
Re: SLM No. 1, Rule 36, Requests for Admission, David Fischer, over at Antitrust Review and in Porter Wright's DC office, pointed out something useful--especially for firms (like his, mine) which are active in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee:
There is another reason to love requests for admission: in some, but not all, federal circuits, requests for admission are not considered tools of discovery. As a result, in courts in those circuits, you can serve requests for admission after the close of fact discovery. See, for example, Misco, Inc. v. United States Steel Corp., 784 F.2d 198, 205 (6th Cir. 1986). See also 8A Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2253 (2d ed. 1994) (Rule 36, strictly speaking, may not set forth a discovery procedure at all because a party does not seek to discover a fact or opinion through a request for admission. Instead, a request seeks to have a party concede the genuineness of a fact or opinion that the requesting party believes to be settled.).
Posted by JD Hull at April 14, 2006 10:24 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)