USA v. Nikolaus Meyer (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On January 22, 2010, the plaintiff, Chase Bank USA, N.A., commenced the present debt collection action by service of process on the defendant, Nikolaus Meyer.   The plaintiff alleges that the defendant owes the plaintiff $7,431.41 for charges and/or cash advances incurred on the defendant's credit account.   On May 21, 2010, the defendant filed his answer to the plaintiff's complaint in which he denied that he owes the plaintiff $7,431.41.   On June 8, 2010, the plaintiff filed notice that requests for admissions were served on the defendant on said date.   On September 7, 2010, the defendant filed his answer to the plaintiff's requests for admission.   On October 4, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion to determine the sufficiency of the defendant's responses to the plaintiff's requests for admission, interrogatories and requests for production.   The motion was accompanied by the affidavit of plaintiff's counsel.   On October 14, 2010, the defendant filed an objection to the plaintiff's motion.   For the reasons that follow, this court deems the defendant's responses to be inadequate.

LAW

“Requests for admissions are governed by Practice Book §§ 13-22 through 13-25.   Section 13-23(a) mandates in relevant part that [e]ach matter of which an admission is requested is admitted unless, within thirty days after the filing of the notice required by Section 13-22(b), or within such shorter or longer time as the judicial authority may allow, the party to whom the request is directed files and serves upon the party requesting the admission a written answer or objection addressed to the matter ․” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  East Haven Builders Supply, Inc. v. Fanton, 80 Conn.App. 734, 744, 837 A.2d 866 (2004).  “Once a response has been filed, the party who has requested the admission may file a motion to determine the sufficiency of the answer or objection [pursuant to Practice Book § 13-23(b) ].”  Id. The motion must be accompanied by an affidavit “certifying that bona fide attempts have been made to resolve the differences concerning the subject matter of the motion and that counsel have been unable to reach an accord ․” Practice Book § 13-23(b).

“The answer [to requests for admission] shall specifically deny the matter or set forth in detail the reasons why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter ․ An answering party may not give lack of information or knowledge as a reason for failure to admit or deny unless such party states that he or she has made reasonable inquiry and that the information known or readily obtainable by him or her is insufficient to enable an admission or denial ․” Practice Book § 13-23(a).   One decision of the Superior Court has compared this section of the Practice Book to rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.   See Vitolo v. Enterprise Leasing Corp., Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. CV 93 0355052 (August 21, 1996, Corradino, J.) (17 Conn. L. Rptr. 481, 482).   In doing so, the court noted that “it is an inadequate response to state that the requests for information involve the ascertainment of facts known only to third persons or the requests cannot be complied with because they are not within a party's personal knowledge ․ [T]he response is inadequate [however] only if the means of information are reasonably within [the party' s] power.”  (Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  Id.

The “lack of personal knowledge [however] is not necessarily a sufficient basis for a failure to respond to the request for admission.   There may be other sources of information that are readily accessible, reliable and that would not be burdensome for a party to review prior to formulating responses to requests for admissions.   Where the information necessary to respond to an admission is solely under the control of an adverse party and the information necessarily relies upon the perceptions of the party that may in certain circumstances be an acceptable basis for a non-response to a request for admission.”  Id., 136-37 (defendant's “blanket formulaic responses” to requests for admission did not provide sufficient information for court to evaluate reasonableness of defendant's inquiry);  see also Hightower v. Walgreen Eastern Co., Superior Court, judicial district of New London, Docket No. CV 000553554 (September 15, 2000, Hurley, J.) (answer to requests for admission inadequate where defendant claimed it has no knowledge but did not state that it made reasonable inquiry).

“If the court determines that the responses are insufficient, pursuant to Practice Book § 13-23(b) it may order either the matter is admitted or that an amended answer be served.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)   Savage v. Andoh, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. CV 07 5015657 (October 9, 2008, Cosgrove, J.);   compare McGuire v. Travelers Property & Casualty Ins., Co., Superior Court, judicial district of Ansonia-Milford, Docket No. CV 02 0079889 (February 17, 2004, Bear, J.) (deeming requests admitted where objection did not comply with Practice Book § 13-23(a)) with Hightower v. Walgreen Eastern Co., supra, Superior Court, Docket No. CV 00 0553554 (ordering defendant to file amended answer to plaintiff's requests for admission).

After careful review of the defendant's responses and consideration of the arguments of the plaintiff and defendant at short calendar, this court finds the defendant's responses to be inadequate.   Accordingly, within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this order, the defendant shall file amended responses to the plaintiff's requests for admission, interrogatories and requests for production or the requests will be deemed admitted.

So ordered.

BY THE COURT

Jack W. Fischer, Judge

Fischer, Jack W., J.