PRICE VS TALBOTT

Denied. The Supplemental Declaration has been considered. Defendant’s response to the Request for Admission (RFA) was not a straight denial or unequivocal. Defendant stated he had insufficient information to admit or deny at the time it was propounded. Defendant contends the response served over a year and four months before trial was based on the facts known at the time as it was the early stage of investigating the claim of Plaintiff who previously suffered from osteoporosis and degenerative disc disease. It is undisputed that Plaintiff’s RFA was propounded early in the case. It does not appear that further attempt was made by Plaintiff to gain further information as the case progressed (i.e. propound further discovery on the issue) nor did he move to compel further response if he believed the response was evasive or incomplete. Defendant appeared to have a good reason to fail to admit given the timing of the RFA, Plaintiff’s preexisting injury and the lack of information known........