Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

August 10, 2006

If you're like me -- and about 90% of other lawyers -- getting hit with a stack of interrogatories or document requests doesn't exactly elicit the reaction, "Jeez, I've got to drop everything and get the responses out on these!"  Timely responses to discovery are about as common as Jessica Simpson winning at Scrabble.  With one exception:  requests for admissions under Rule 36.  As more than a few lawyers have learned the hard way, requests come with a self-enforcing time limit:  the other side can ask you nasty questions like, "Admit that you were negligent," and if you don't respond within the 28 days allowed by the rule, the request is deemed admitted.

Maybe.  I recently had to do a brief for a lawyer who'd been tardy in filing his responses, and it turns out the law is a bit more forgiving.  Under Rule 36(B), the court can permit withdrawal or amendment of a response (and "amendment" equals a late filing) "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 the party in maintaining his action or defense on the merits."

That allows a lot of discretion, and the courts -- especially at the Federal level -- have been quite willing to use it to allow filings out of rule.  I found cases where the responses were allowed after summary judgment had been filed, and in one case where they were allowed after the trial started.  In one, the defendant hadn't gotten around to answering requests that had been filed two years earlier, and the court simply gave him a date to respond to them.  (If you start with the forfeiture case reported at 863 F.Supp. 442, it'll lead you to the others.)

The Ohio courts haven't been quite as willing to absolve untimeliness in responding, especially where the conduct is egregious -- like filing the responses six months after they were due and nine days before trial, as happened in one 1998 case.  The best case here is this one from the 9th District, which held that the trial court's refusal to permit a late filing was an abuse of discretion because of the "basic tenet of Ohio jurisprudence that cases should be decided on their merits."

Love those basic tenets.  They'll get you off the hook eight times out of ten.

Search

Recent Entries

  • May 25, 2017
    "Clarifying" post-release controls
    A look at the Supreme Court's decision in State v. Grimes
  • May 23, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Allied offenses, and two search cases
  • May 23, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Allied offenses, and two search cases
  • May 22, 2017
    Case Update
    Is SCOTUS looking for a forfeiture case? Plus, appellate decisions on expungement and restitution, plain error, and what a judge has to tell a defendant about sex registration
  • May 19, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th - Part II
    Decisions on lineups and prior calculation and design, and two out of eight (eight!) pro se defendants come up winners,
  • May 17, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th - Part I
    Taking a first look at some of the 8th District's decisions over the past two weeks
  • May 16, 2017
    Case Update
    Stock tips, Federal sentencing reform goes dormant, schoolbag searches, and the retroactivity of State v. Hand
  • May 8, 2017
    Case Update
    Death in Arkansas, a worrisome disciplinary decision, and appellate cases on speedy trial, arson registration, use of prior testimony, and the futility of post-conviction relief
  • May 2, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Nothing but sex
  • May 1, 2017
    Case Update
    SCOTUS closes out oral argument for the Term, the Ohio Supreme Court has seven of them this week, and we report on a decision where you'll probably want to play Paul Simon's "Still Crazy After All These Years" in the background while you read about it