BURKE v. ST. LOUIS CITY JAILS, 4:14-CV-2107 RLW. (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri
Number: infdco20160802e05
Visitors: 11
Filed: Aug. 01, 2016
Latest Update: Aug. 01, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RONNIE L. WHITE , District Judge . This matter is before the court on Defendants' Motion to Determine the Sufficiency of Plaintiffs Reply to Request for Admissions (ECF No. 94). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(4) provides: If a matter [in a request for admissions] is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and whe
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RONNIE L. WHITE , District Judge . This matter is before the court on Defendants' Motion to Determine the Sufficiency of Plaintiffs Reply to Request for Admissions (ECF No. 94). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(4) provides: If a matter [in a request for admissions] is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RONNIE L. WHITE, District Judge.
This matter is before the court on Defendants' Motion to Determine the Sufficiency of Plaintiffs Reply to Request for Admissions (ECF No. 94). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(4) provides:
If a matter [in a request for admissions] is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest. The answering party may assert lack of knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny.
Here, Plaintiff denied Requests for Admissions numbers 5, 8, 10, and 11, without any explanation.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Determine the Sufficiency of Plaintiffs Reply to Request for Admissions (ECF No. 94) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall respond to Requests for Admissions numbers 5, 8, 10, and 11 in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1) no later than August 12, 2016.
Source: Leagle
