Heck v. Adamson

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
In re
WILLIAM C. ADAMSON,
Debtor.
____________________________
BRIAN T. HECK,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM C. ADAMSON,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 09-00623
(Chapter 7)
Adversary Proceeding No.
09-10042
Not for Publication in
West’s Bankruptcy Reporter
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
AMEND ADMISSIONS AND ADDRESSING ISSUE OF WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN
SUPERIOR COURT FINDINGS
For the reasons that follow, the defendant Adamson will be
allowed to withdraw certain admissions. 	In addition, this order
addresses the issue of the evidentiary weight to be given
findings of fact made by the Superior Court.
I
Rule 36(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states
that all request for admissions will be deemed admitted if not
The order below is hereby signed.
Signed: August 05, 2010.
_____________________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 09-10042 Doc 50 Filed 08/06/10 Entered 08/06/10 13:39:30 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 5

2
objected to in writing within thirty days after being served.
Rule 36(b), however, allows the court to permit a party to
withdraw or amend an admission if doing so would (1) promote the
presentation of the merits of the action, and (2) not prejudice
the requesting party in maintaining or defending the action on
the merits. 	If, as here, a party moves to respond to a request
for admissions after the thirty-day time period, the court treats
such a motion as a motion to withdraw or amend admissions and
analyzes it under the two-pronged test of rule 36(b). 	Baker v.
Potter, 212 F.R.D. 8, 12 (D.D.C. 2002).
The test’s first prong is whether the admission would
effectively bar the party from presenting its case on the merits.
Id. at 13; see also Green v. Blazer Diamond Products, Inc., 1994
WL 715632 (D.D.C. 1994). 	The second prong, lack of prejudice, is
satisfied if the opposing party is no less able than it was
before the admission was made to obtain whatever evidence exists
to prove the matters which had been admitted. 	Rabil v. Swafford,
128 F.R.D. 1, 2 (D.D.C. 1989). 	The U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia has held that the filing of a motion for
summary judgment before the request to amend does not alone rise
to the level of prejudice sufficient to satisfy the prejudice
prong. Davis v. Noufal, 142 F.R.D. 258, 259 (D.D.C. 1992)
(“Although defendants did file a motion for summary judgment,
that fact does not establish the requisite level of prejudice.”);
Case 09-10042 Doc 50 Filed 08/06/10 Entered 08/06/10 13:39:30 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 5

1 Heck appears to have had ready access to Jay Hoover, a
witness whose affidavit Heck was able to procure to submit in
support of his motion for summary judgment, and whose testimony
would rebut Adamson’s denial of some of the requested admissions.
3
Rabil, 128 F.R.D. at 2 (“[A]lthough plaintiff has filed a motion
for summary judgment, he would not be unduly burdened by allowing
the admissions to conform with the response filed January 19,
1989, and allowing plaintiff to refile his motion for summary
judgment based on the actual facts of the case.”). 	Furthermore,
the party who obtained the admissions has the burden of proof to
show that they would be prejudiced by amendment or withdrawal.
Rabil, 128 F.R.D. at 2.
Adamson admitted most of the requests for admissions, but
the ones he denied will be important in deciding one of ultimate
issues--whether he made misrepresentations to Heck. 	Allowing
Adamson to respond to the admissions would promote the
presentation of the merits of the action, thus, the first prong
is satisfied. 	The second prong is satisfied as well. 	Heck has
not shown that he would have trouble in gathering evidence to
attempt to prove these admissions because of the untimely
response. 	The response to the request for admissions was due on
April 8, 2010, and the deadline for other discovery to be
completed expired on April 5, 2010, so Heck cannot argue that he
held off taking discovery based on the admissions. 1 	Moreover,
having filed a motion for summary judgment relying on the
Case 09-10042 Doc 50 Filed 08/06/10 Entered 08/06/10 13:39:30 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 5

4
admissions is not sufficiently prejudicial. 	Therefore, Adamson’s
motion to amend the request for admissions satisfies the
requirements of rule 36(b).
It is acknowledged that granting Adamson’s motion could
affect Heck’s motion for summary judgment. 	Heck, therefore, will
be granted time to file an amended motion for summary judgment.
II
The parties have filed motions for summary judgment in which
they both rely, in part, upon findings of fact in a memorandum
decision by Judge Vincent of the Superior Court of the District
of Columbia. 	Any amended motion for summary judgment Heck files
will also presumably rely on these findings, and if the matter
proceeds to trial, the parties may attempt to rely on the
findings. 	In the interest of avoiding duplicative litigation,
the court desires to know the parties’ views as to what
evidentiary weight, if any, the findings of fact are entitled to
in this court. 	(In any event, are they for the most part
findings of facts to which the parties would stipulate?)
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that within 21 days of the entry of this order, the
parties shall file a response stipulating what weight, if any,
the court may give to Judge Vincent's findings of fact. 	Namely,
the parties should specify as to each of the findings whether
Judge Vincent's finding, in toto, should be given preclusive
Case 09-10042 Doc 50 Filed 08/06/10 Entered 08/06/10 13:39:30 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 5

5	O:\TEEL\Trentman\Adamson time extension on RFAs 2.wpd
effect, the same effect the court would give an affidavit in
addressing the motion for summary judgment, or no effect at all.
It is further
ORDERED that in the event the parties are unable to agree on
a stipulated weight to give Judge Vincent's findings, the court
will decide as a matter of law what effect, if any, they are
entitled to in this court. 	It is further
ORDERED that Adamson’s motion to amend admissions is GRANTED
and that Heck is granted leave, if he deems appropriate, to file
an amended motion for summary judgment within 21 days after the
entry of this order.
[Signed and dated above.]
Copies to: All counsel of record.
Case 09-10042 Doc 50 Filed 08/06/10 Entered 08/06/10 13:39:30 Desc Main
Document Page 5 of 5