 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cole v. Buckner6/13/2002
ION IN DENYING THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER AND/OR TO PERMIT WITHDRAWAL OR AMENDMENT OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (NOS. 2 AND 4).
. In support of his argument as to an extension of time or permission to withdraw or amend his answer to the requests for admission, Cole only asserts that, with the receipt of the affidavit of a competent physician expert, the burden of M.R.C.P. 36(b) was clearly met. He cites no case authority to supplement his argument that the trial judge abused his discretion by not allowing a withdrawal or amendment.
. M.R.C.P. 36(b) states:
Any matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission. Subject to the provisions governing amendment of a pre-trial order, the court may permit withdrawal or amendment when the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved thereby and the party who obtained the admission fails to satisfy the court that withdrawal or amendment will prejudice him in maintaining his action or defense on the merits....
This Court has repeatedly held that M.R.C.P. 36 should be enforced as it is written:
We do not intend here to suggest that any request for admissions to which a response, objection or motion for time has not been filed before the thirty-first day should be taken as irrevocably admitted. Necessary and practicable leniency, however, appear to have generated an air of benevolent gratuity about the administration of Rule 36. But, of course, there is no gratuity about it. Courts cannot give or withhold at pleasure. Rule 36 is to be enforced according to its terms. Educational Placement Servs. v. Wilson, 487 So. 2d 1316, 1318 (Miss. 1986).
Because discovery is left to the discretion of the trial court, this Court will only reverse a ruling if there has been an abuse of discretion. Harkins, 348 So. 2d at 1022 (citing Paulk v. Housing Auth., 228 So.2d 871 (Miss.1969)). After conducting two hearings, the trial court determined there was no sufficient cause for Cole's delay in answering discovery. This Court finds no abuse of discretion.
. Dr. Buckner takes her argument one step further and states not only were the responses untimely, but they were meaningless under URCCC 4.04B which states:
When responding to discovery requests, interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission, the responding party shall, as part of the responses, set forth immediately preceding the response the question or request to which such response is given. Responses shall not be deemed to have been served without compliance to this subdivision.
Cole's responses did not set forth the question preceding each response. Therefore, according to the rule, the responses are deemed to have not been served. This Court finds this issue is also without merit.
CONCLUSION
. Cole cites no case authority to support either of his arguments. The requests for admission did not violate M.R.C.P. 36(a). The trial judge did not abuse his discretion by not allowing an extension of time, withdrawal or amendment of the requests for admission pursuant to M.R.C.P. 36(b). The motion for summary judgment was properly granted, and this Court affirms the judgment of the circuit court.
. AFFIRMED.
PITTMAN, C.J., McRAE AND SMITH, P.JJ., WALLER, COBB, DIAZ, EASLEY AND GRAVES, JJ., CONCUR.
|