Opinion
Civil Action 18-11273 (MCA)(LDW)
06-14-2022
OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. 21ST CENTURY FOX AMERICA, INC., et al., Defendants.
SPECIAL MASTER DECISION GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART SMALL PARTIES GROUP DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A DETERMINATION OF PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S CROSS-MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
THOMAS P. SCRIVO SPECIAL MASTER
INTRODUCTION
This matter comes by way of a Motion, filed by the Small Parties Group Defendants (“SPG Defendants”) on January 14, 2022, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(6), for a determination regarding Plaintiff, Occidental Chemical Corporation's (“OxyChem's”), amended answers to SPG Defendants' Requests for Admission (the “RFAs”) (ECF No. 1945) (the “RFA Motion”). SPG Defendants contend that OxyChem's amended responses are insufficient and, thus, seek an Order deeming the amended responses to the RFAs admitted.
On February 24, 2022, OxyChem filed opposition to the RFA Motion and, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and L.Civ.R. 7.1(h), a cross-motion for a protective order (ECF No. 1997) (“Cross-Motion”). OxyChem asserts that the RFAs violate the purpose of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 because the RFAs are oppressive and unduly burdensome.
On March 28, 2022, SPG Defendants' filed a reply in further support of the RFA Motion and in opposition to the Cross-Motion (ECF No. 2011) (the “Reply”).
The parties have participated in several meet-and-confers to resolve the discovery dispute over the RFAs, but were unable to come to a full resolution. However, the parties have agreed that the dispute is limited to 267 RFAs identified in Exhibit A to OxyChem's November 19, 2021, letter to SPG Defendants (ECF No. 1907) (the “Nov. 19 Letter”). The motions, therefore, are ripe for a decision by the Special Master. For the reasons set forth herein, the RFA Motion is granted in part and denied in part, and the Cross-Motion is denied. The Special Master's Findings as to all disputed RFAs are detailed in Exhibit A to this Decision and OxyChem has 30 days to provide amended answers as required in Exhibit A.
BACKGROUND
A. SPG Defendants' RFAs
On July 13, 2021, SPG Defendants served 449 RFAs on OxyChem (ECF No. 1504) (the “July 13 Letter”). See July 13 Letter at 1; see also Exhibit A to the RFA Motion.
SPG Defendants served the RFAs prior to the parties' agreement that the universe of RFAs is limited to 267 RFAs.
On August 13, 2021, OxyChem sent a letter to SPG Defendants to request a meet-and-confer to discuss the RFAs. See ECF No. 1945-9.
On August 23, 2021, OxyChem sent a letter to SPG Defendants wherein OxyChem: (i) objected to the RFAs as unduly burdensome; (ii) proposed a meet-and-confer to discuss the RFAs; and (iii) requested that the Special Master grant leave to file a motion to quash or for protection. See July 13 Letter.
On September 2, 2021, the parties held a meet-and-confer on the RFAs. See ECF No. 1997-4.
On September 10, 2021, OxyChem provided its initial responses to the RFAs. See ECF No. 1945-3 at 4.
On October 13, 2021, SPG Defendants sent a letter to OxyChem stating that OxyChem's initial responses to the RFAs were improper and included inappropriate answers and/or denials. See ECF No. 1945-10 (“Oct. 13 Letter”). SPG Defendants also requested a meet-and-confer to discuss the responses. OxyChem did not respond to the Oct. 13 Letter.
On October 27, 2021, SPG Defendants sent a follow up letter to OxyChem. See ECF No. 1945-11.
On November 10, 2021, the parties held a second meet-and-confer to discuss OxyChem's initial responses to the RFAs. See ECF No. 1945-2.
On November 17, 2021, the Special Master held a status conference (the “November Status Conference”). At the November Status Conference, OxyChem reported that it agreed to provide amended responses to the RFAs on or about December 8, 2021. Prior to doing so, however, OxyChem requested that SPG Defendants submit correspondence detailing which, if any, of the 449 RFAs SPG Defendants planned to withdraw.
On November 19, 2021, OxyChem filed the Nov. 19 Letter wherein OxyChem requested confirmation that the discovery dispute was limited to the 267 RFAs listed in Exhibit A to the Nov. 19 Letter.
On November 30, 2021, SPG Defendants confirmed that the dispute was limited to the 267 RFAs identified in Exhibit A, and that any motion practice related to the RFAs would not include RFAs outside the 267. See ECF No. 1910.
On December 8, 2021, OxyChem served amended answers and objections to the RFAs (the “Amended Responses”). See ECF No. 1945-12.
On December 9, 2021, OxyChem filed a letter to the Special Master to provide an update on the dispute. See ECF No. 1922 at 1.
On December 15, 2021, SPG Defendants filed a letter stating that SPG Defendants planned to file a motion to determine the sufficiency of the Amended Responses. See ECF No. 1929.
B. SPG Defendants' RFA Motion
On January 14, 2022, SPG Defendants filed the RFA Motion. SPG Defendants contend that the Amended Responses should be deemed admitted, or alternatively, OxyChem should be directed to serve additional amended responses for failing to properly admit or deny the RFAs.
To that end, SPG Defendants set forth three arguments in support of the RFA Motion: (i) OxyChem relied on boilerplate objections; (ii) OxyChem provided evasive answers to straightforward requests; and (iii) OxyChem offers irrelevant, self-serving explanations. SPG Defendants also rely on unpublished cases from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for the proposition that responses, which do not go to the truth contained in the RFAs and purportedly frustrate the purpose of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36, require that the responding party submit amended responses. See United States v. Lorenzo, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7362 (E.D. Pa. June 14, 1990); Penn Eng'g & Mfg. Corp. v. Peninsula Components, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64382 (E.D. Pa. April 1, 2021).
C. OxyChem's Cross-Motion for a Protective Order
On February 24, 2022, OxyChem filed the Cross-Motion. By way of support, OxyChem asserts that a protective order should be entered because: (i) the RFAs are oppressive and unduly burdensome by sheer number, form, and subject; (ii) the Amended Responses are not evasive; and (iii) OxyChem provided qualifications and explanations where necessary.
In citing to a decision from the District for the District of Columbia, Harris v. Koenig, 271 F.R.D. 356, 372 (D.D.C. 2010), OxyChem asserts that the propounding parties' disagreement with an answer is neither a proper basis for finding a response insufficient, nor grounds for deeming requests admitted. OxyChem also cites to an unpublished decision from this District for the proposition that whether OxyChem properly denied an RFA requires an analysis of the denial and qualification, if any. In re Valeant Pharms. Int'l Secs. Litig., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108161, *50 (D.N.J. April 1, 2021) (citations omitted).
Finally, OxyChem asserts that should the Special Master find any of the Amended Responses insufficient, the proper relief is to order OxyChem to submit additional amended responses.
D. SPG Defendants' Reply
On March 28, 2022, SPG Defendants filed the Reply. SPG Defendants set forth two arguments in support of granting the RFA Motion and denying the Cross-Motion. First, SPG Defendants argue that OxyChem improperly seeks to relieve itself of its obligation to further amend its Amended Responses. Second, SPG Defendants argue that OxyChem failed to show significant harm or that the RFAs are unduly burdensome and/or oppressive.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Requests for Admission Are Used to Admit the Truth of Matters Pertinent to the Case
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 governs requests for admission. Shelton v. Fast Advance Funding, LLC, 805 Fed.Appx. 156, 158 (3d Cir. 2020). The Rule provides in pertinent part:
A party may serve on any other party a written request to admit, for purposes of the pending action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to: (A) facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either; and (B) the genuineness of any described documents.
[Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1)(A)-(B).]
Requests for admission “serve[] two vital purposes, both of which are designed to reduce trial time.” Notes of Advisory Committee on 1970 Amendments. First, “to facilitate proof with respect to issues that cannot be eliminated from the case, ” and second, “to narrow the issues by eliminating those that can be.” Ibid.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 “give[s] an admission a conclusively binding effect, for purposes only of the pending action, unless the admission is withdrawn or amended.” Note to Subdivision (b); see also Shelton, 805 Fed.Appx. at 158-59 (“An admission is . . . an unassailable statement of fact and is binding on the non-responsive party unless withdrawn or amended.”) (citations omitted); Langer v. Monarch Life Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 786, 803 (3d Cir. 1992) (“[A]dmissions are conclusive for purposes of the litigation and are sufficient to support summary judgment.”) (citation omitted).
If a “matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a)(4). When denying a request for admission, the “use of only the word denied is often sufficient under the [R]ule.” United Coal Cos. v. Powell Constr. Co., 839 F.2d 958, 967 (3d Cir. 1988) (citations and internal quotations omitted).
The propounding party “may move to determine the sufficiency of an answer or objection.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a)(6). “Unless the court finds an objection justified, it must order that an answer be served.” Id. Upon “finding that an answer does not comply with” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36, the “court may order either that the matter is admitted or that an amended answer be served.” Id.
Accordingly, on a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(6), the court must analyze each of the requests of admission, and the response thereto, to determine if the responding party must submit amended answers and/or if any answer should be deemed admitted.
B. Good Cause Must Be Demonstrated to Warrant Entry of a Protective Order
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1) provides in pertinent part that:
A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending . . . The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expenses, including . . . (A) forbidding the disclosure or discovery; . . . [or, inter alia, ] (D) forbidding inquiry into certain matters, or limiting the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters . . . .
[Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (1)(A)-(D).]
“If a motion for a protective order is wholly or partly denied, the court may, on just terms, order that any party or person provide or permit discovery.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(2).
A “court may issue a protective order to regulate the terms, conditions, time or place of discovery.” Adesanya v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159712, *5 (D.N.J. Nov. 24, 2015) (citations omitted). Indeed, the “objective” of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 is “to guard against redundant or disproportionate discovery by giving the court authority to reduce the amount of discovery that may be directed to matters that are otherwise proper subjects of inquiry.” Notes of Advisory Committee on 1983 amendments, Note to Subdivision (b). To that end, the “grounds” for “limiting discovery reflect the existing practice of many courts in issuing protective orders under Rule 26(c).” Id.
DISCUSSION
A. The Motions Are Not Procedurally Defective
Several procedural arguments are raised by the parties that must be initially addressed. First, it is undeniable that the RFAs at issue here are the 267 RFAs identified by OxyChem and confirmed by SPG Defendants. Therefore, the Special Master's Findings apply only to the 267 RFAs. This Decision has no bearing on any of the 182 other RFAs not identified in Exhibit A to the Nov. 19 Letter, and does not bar any party from serving requests for admission on any other party at a later date.
Second, OxyChem was required to respond to the RFAs within thirty-days, but failed to do so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3); see also Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London v. Alesi, 843 F.Supp.2d 517, 532 (D.N.J. Dec. 30, 2011) (citations omitted). However, upon receipt of the RFAs, OxyChem requested an extension of time to respond. See ECF No. 1945-8 at 6. The parties also held their first meet-and-confer prior to the due date. Finally, OxyChem submitted its initial responses to the RFAs on the requested date. As a result, neither OxyChem's initial responses nor the Amended Responses are untimely.
Third, contrary to SPG Defendants' assertion, OxyChem's motion for leave to file a motion to quash or protective order is of no consequence. On September 22, 2021, the Special Master held a status conference. At the September Status Conference, the Special Master stated that motion practice related to the RFAs would be decided on “the merits of the issue as opposed to any procedural wranglings[, ]” and not on whether OxyChem purportedly waived its “burden objection by answering” the RFAs. See ECF No. 1997-10, Tr. of September Status Conference at ¶ 54:25-T56:1. Therefore, the Special Master does not accept SPG Defendants' contention that OxyChem's motion to quash or for a protective order is moot because of OxyChem's responses to the RFAs.
Fourth, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 permits OxyChem to qualify its answer. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4) (A denial “must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer to deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest.”). SPG Defendants' arguments to the contrary do not bar OxyChem from qualifying its Amended Responses, where appropriate. The appropriateness of each of OxyChem's qualified responses is addressed in Exhibit A.
Fifth, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 provides that “a denial is a perfectly reasonable response[, ]” United Coal Cos., 839 F.2d at 967. The denial, however, “must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify or an answer to deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest. Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a)(4). The Special Master agrees that OxyChem does not need to “explain” the reasons for every one of its Amended Responses, see ECF No. 1504 n.1, but may need to explain certain denials, as detailed herein. Accordingly, the Special Master will not strike all RFA responses that contain a mere denial. Instead, the Rule requires an analysis of each RFA and the Amended Response thereto.
Accordingly, the RFA Motion and Cross-Motion are not procedurally defective, and thus, the motions will be decided on the merits.
B. Good Cause is Not Demonstrated to Trigger Entry of a Protective Order
Before the Special Master are two interrelated issues: (i) whether OxyChem carried its burden to warrant entry of a protective order; and (ii) whether the Amended Responses comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. OxyChem failed to carry its burden to trigger entry of a protective order regarding the RFAs. OxyChem is directed to comply with the Special Master's Findings for each individual RFA and Amended Response as set forth in Exhibit A, which is annexed to this Decision.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 requires that the movant demonstrate, with specificity, the purported harm that will occur if a protective order is not entered. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1); see also Arnold v. Pennsylvania, 477 F.3d 105, 108 (3d Cir. 2007) (“Good cause” is defined as “showing that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure.”) (quoting Publicker Indus., Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059, 1071 (3d Cir. 1986)). Failure to meet this burden is detrimental to the protective order application. See Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1121 (3d Cir. 1986) (“Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning” are not enough) (citations omitted). The harm, if any, must also “be significant.” Id. (citations omitted). The “burden of persuasion is on the party seeking the protective order.” Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1121 (3d Cir. 1986). Indeed, “[t]o overcome the presumption, the party seeking the protective order must show good cause by demonstrating a particular need for protection.” Cipollone, 785 F.2d at 1121; see also Glenmede Trust Co. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d Cir. 1995) (citations omitted).
“Good cause” is established based on “balancing a number of considerations.” Arnold, 477 F.3d at 108 (citations omitted); see also In re Avandia Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 924 F.3d 662, 671 (3d Cir. 2019) (citation and internal quotations omitted). Thus, whether a protective order is warranted turns on a finding that the moving party has established good cause based on an analysis of pertinent factors. Courts in this District have denied motions for protective orders when movants fail to set forth the grounds “constituting good cause, ” and information sought by way of requests for admission is relevant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. See Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A. v. M/V Tundra Consumer, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54188, *3-5 (D.N.J. April 19, 2005). Instead, courts have opted to make specific determinations regarding the scope of individual RFAs and the appropriateness of the responses thereto. Mickley v. Sunrise Senior Living, 2010 U.S Dist. LEXIS 152819, *5-7 (D.N.J. May 10, 2010).
OxyChem has not carried its burden for entry of a protective order. OxyChem failed to demonstrate that the RFAs are oppressive and/or unduly burdened by sheer number, form, and subject. Specifically, OxyChem contends that SPG Defendants' initial 449 RFAs are oppressive and unduly burdensome. Whether true or not is not pertinent to the Cross-Motion. It is undisputed that SPG Defendants withdrew 182 of its initial RFAs (449 RFAs to 267 RFAs). While certain of the disputed 267 RFAs are improper, they are not sufficiently oppressive or burdensome to warrant a protective order. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 is clear “that a reasonable burden may be imposed on the parties when its discharge will facilitate preparation for trial and ease the trial process.” Note to Subdivision (a). In light of the scope of OxyChem's claims, responding to 267
RFAs is not unduly burdensome. In fact, responses to RFAs may well ease the trial process and resolve certain facts currently in dispute. Instead of entering a protective order, the Special Master has undertaken a detailed review of all disputed RFAs to determine the appropriateness of the requests and OxyChem's responses. Accordingly, OxyChem's Cross-Motion for entry of a protective order is denied.
It is noted that the Cross-Motion does not include a good cause analysis. Instead, OxyChem asserts in conclusory fashion that the RFAs are oppressive and unduly burdensome without any specific factual basis. The relevant case law is clear that this basis is insufficient.
C. Special Master Finds That Not All of The Amended Responses Comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36
As a threshold matter, the Special Master finds that OxyChem's general objections serve no legitimate purpose. Harding v. Dana Transp., 914 F.Supp. 1084, 1102 (D.N.J. 1996). As such, they are stricken.
As required by applicable law, the Special Master has made a specific finding in respect of each disputed RFA, analyzing OxyChem's response and the specific and particularized objections to each RFA. See Exhibit A. As set forth in Exhibit A, the Special Master has made one of the following findings regarding the RFAs and the Amended Responses:
(1) The Amended Response complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 and no further action is required;
(2) The Amended Response does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 and requires an amended response;
(3) The Amended Response does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 and the request is deemed admitted; or
(4) The RFA is improper and no further action is required.
CONCLUSION
SPG Defendants' motion for a determination of the Amended Responses is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and OxyChem's cross-motion for a protective order is DENIED. OxyChem shall provide any required amended answers within 30 days from the date hereof.
EXHIBIT A
Special Master's Findings