Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND SAMUEL WHIDDEN, Plaintiff v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF THE MID-ATLANTIC STATES, INC., et al., Defendants : : : : : : : : : ...o0o... ORDER In this medical malpractice action based on diversity of citizenship, defendants have filed a Motion for Leave of Court to File Amended Request for Admissions. The problem with the original request for admissions was that there were too many individual requests: 70, rather than the 30 allowed by this court's local rules. See Rule 104.1 (D.Md. 2001). Defendants reformulated their request for admissions so that only 30 separately-numbered requests remained. Nevertheless, plaintiff refused to respond to them on the ground that defendants offered "no justification" for their failure to comply with an "unambiguous" local rule, and in light of the fact that the scheduling order issued in this case (and routinely employed by many of the judges of this court) admonish counsel that "[t]he court will demand compliance with the Local Rules." Accordingly, plaintiff has opposed defendants' motion for leave to file amended request for admissions and has moved for a protective order relieving plaintiff of any obligation to respond to defendants' reformulated request. Without question, this court understandably "will [continue to] demand compliance with the Local Rules." Nonetheless, I am constrained to observe that while this scenario represents a remarkable failure by counsel for defendants to know and follow the local rules of this court, it is also a remarkable failure by counsel for plaintiff to extend to fellow counsel

CIVIL NO. AMD 01-3057

a simple professional courtesy which could not possibly prejudice his client. I regret that lawyers who are members of the bar of this court behave in such a fashion, and I hope that the incidence of such standoffs will diminish. In any event, the proper resolution of this unseemly inattention to the local rules, and the equally unseemly disagreeableness manifested toward fellow counsel, is to require plaintiff to choose from among the original 70 requests for admission the 30 requests to which plaintiff would like to respond. Accordingly, it is this 26th day September, 2002, by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, ORDERED (1) That the "Motion for Leave of Court to File Amended Request for Admissions"

(Paper No. 21) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED (2) That the "Motion for a Protective Order" (Paper No. 22) is DENIED; and it is

further ORDERED (3) That PLAINTIFF SHALL RESPOND TO 30 OF THE ORIGINAL 70

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, AS SELECTED BY PLAINTIFF, FILED BY DEFENDANTS, SUCH RESPONSES TO BE SERVED BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION ON OR BEFORE TUESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2002; and it is further ORDERED (4) That the Clerk shall TRANSMIT a copy of this Order to all counsel.

ANDRE M. DAVIS United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2



Download Samuel Whidden v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Mid-Atlantic States, Inc.

Maryland Law