Legal Opinion
O'Neill v. Medad
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Decided April 1, 1996No. 94-CV-71175-DTPublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
GILMORE, District Judge.
The issues before the Court are whether a request for admissions is considered discovery for purposes of discovery scheduling dates and whether the Court will permit withdrawal of default admissions on Defendant’s Motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(b).
For the reasons set forth below, the Court holds that a request for admissions is not a general discovery device and is therefore not subject to discovery cutoff dates.
The Court further holds that although Defendants have filed a Motion to Withdraw or Amend pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(b), the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- 999, a Corporation, Plaintiff/appellee/cross-Appellant v. C.I.T. Corporation, a Corporation, Defendant/appellant/cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
- Donovan v. Carls Drug Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983
- Misco, Inc., Mid-South Aluminum Company, and Everett W. Fielder, Jr. v. United States Steel Corporation and Alside, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1986
- Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Shreveport, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1988
- Ropfogel v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 1991
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Lakehead Pipe Line Co. v. American Home Assurance Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1997
- Gluck v. Ansett Australia Ltd.District Court, District of Columbia · 2001
- Freeman v. City of DetroitDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2011
- Henderson v. United States (In re Guardian Trust Co.)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Mississippi · 1999
- Back v. Ray Jones Trucking, Inc.District Court, W.D. Kentucky · 2023
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.