PHILLIPS v. SHELBY COUNTY GOVERNMENT (2026)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a). Doc. 57. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

Summary Judgment Standard

A court may grant summary judgment “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “The Court must view the evidence—and justifiable inferences from the facts—in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Austin v. Camping World RV Sales, LLC, No. 2:21-CV-02541-TLP-CGC, 2024 WL 1342608, at *2 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 29, 2024), aff'd, No. 24-5329, 2025 WL 1091610 (6th Cir. Jan. 6, 2025).

Analysis

This is an atypical motion for summary judgment: Plaintiff does not point to affidavits and other evidence to show that she is entitled to judgment based on undisputed facts. Instead, she relies entirely on Defendant's failure (or refusal) to respond to various requests for admissions, which she says amount to deemed admissions under Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—deemed admissions that she claims entitle her to judgment on her claims.

This gambit fails. It is true that under Rule 36(a), a failure to respond within 30 days results in the matter being deemed admitted. But a trial court is entitled to set deadlines and to otherwise vary the rules and times for responding. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) (requiring district courts to issue scheduling orders which may “limit the time to ․ complete discovery”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3) (“A shorter or longer time for responding may be ․ ordered by the court.”); see also Marie v. Am. Red Cross, 771 F.3d 344, 366 (6th Cir. 2014) (“District courts have broad discretion under the rules of civil procedure to manage the discovery process and control their dockets.”). And here, the judge earlier assigned to this case ordered that “[t]he parties shall serve requests at least 45 days before the [December 2, 2025] deadline to complete written discovery to allow sufficient time for responses by the deadline for completion of discovery.” Doc. 48 at 2 n.1.

Plaintiff served the requests for admission on November 17 (Doc. 57-1)—making them late under the Scheduling Order. Defendant therefore had no obligation to respond, and the lack of a response is not a deemed admission. Because Plaintiff's Motion depends entirely on those purported deemed admissions, it must be denied without them.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 57) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED, this 26th day of March 2026.

BRIAN C. LEA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE