Crouch et al v. Honeywell International, Inc. et al, No. 3:2007cv00638 - Document 327 (W.D. Ky. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge James D. Moyer on 9/17/2013 granting in part and denying in part 318 Motion for Protective Order. The court will DENY plaintiffs motion with respect to requests for admission numbers 9, 15-19, 21-29, 31-41, and 45-48, but will otherwise GRANT the motion. Plaintiffs shall have thirty days from the date of entry of this order to admit or deny each request for admission identified above. cc:counsel (DAK)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE LARRY CROUCH, ET AL. VS. PLAINTIFFS CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:07-CV-638-S JOHN JEWELL AIRCRAFT, INC., ET AL. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The plaintiffs have filed a motion for a protective order regarding John Jewell Aircraft, Inc. s requests for admission, which they propounded on one of the plaintiffs, Carolyn Sue Hudson (docket no. 318). Having considered the motion and all responses thereto, and being otherwise advised, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. This case is approximately six years old and the discovery deadlines have been extended several times. The most recent extension established a discovery cutoff of May 31, 2013 (docket no. 302). Twenty-seven days after that deadline, John Jewell Aircraft, Inc. propounded fifty-four requests for admission on Ms. Hudson. The court has reviewed each request for admission, and the accompanying interrogatory and request for production of documents. The court is aware that the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has not issued an opinion directly on point with respect to whether requests for admission are generally subject to discovery deadlines, and that various district courts within the Sixth Circuit and in other parts of the country have reached different conclusions with respect to whether requests for admissions are properly included within the parameters of a general cutoff for discovery in a scheduling order. See, e.g. Hurt v. Coyne Cylinder Co. 124 F.R.D. 614 (W.D. Tenn. 1989); Gluck v. Ansett Australia Ltd., 204 F.R.D. 217, 219 (D.D.C. 2001). While this court is inclined to agree with the analysis in Gluck, it is also mindful that a district court has broad discretion with respect the extension of discovery deadlines, and agrees with the court in Hurt that narrowly written requests for admissions can be helpful tools that permit the elimination of issues from a case prior to trial and thereby avoid the introduction of unnecessary evidence and arguments. The court will therefore DENY plaintiffs motion with respect to requests for admission numbers 9, 15-19, 21-29, 31-41, and 45-48, but will otherwise GRANT the motion. Plaintiffs shall have thirty days from the date of entry of this order to admit or deny each request for admission identified above. DATE: September 17, 2013 Copies to Counsel of Record
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
