Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-4_04-cv-04081/USCOURTS-arwd-4_04-cv-04081-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

BOBBY EARL MOORE PLAINTIFF

VS. Case No. 04-CV-4081

DANIEL ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a 

SOUTH PARK TEXACO, et al. DEFENDANTS

KLLM TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC. INTERVENOR 

 

ORDER

This lawsuit involves Plaintiff Bobby Earl Moore’s claim of negligence arising 

when he, as a pedestrian, was allegedly struck by a vehicle driven by Separate Defendant Joshua

L. Shomber at the South Park Texaco Truck Stop in Clarksville, Arkansas. Before the Court is

Moore’s Second Motion to Determine Sufficiency of Answers and Motion to Compel Answers

to Interrogatories. (Doc. 33). Shomber has filed a response. (Doc. 40). Moore has filed a reply. 

(Doc. 43). The Court finds this motion ripe for consideration and for the following reasons, finds

the motion should be denied.

For the second time, Moore has moved for this Court’s order determining the sufficiency

of Shomber’s answers to his requests for admissions 3, 4, 7, 8, 10 and 11, and Moore also seeks

an alternative ruling compelling Shomber to provide sufficient verified responses to Moore’s

Third Set of Interrogatories. In our previous Order, the Court reprinted these requests for

admissions in full, and, for brevity’s sake, we won’t reprint them again here. It’s sufficient to say

these requests concern Shomber’s driving record and criminal history in the State of California.

Moore’s most recent motion to determine sufficiency of answers makes this basic

argument: Shomber’s answers to the requests for admissions are insufficient because he has the

knowledge and means available to truthfully answer the admissions (presumably in the

affirmative) but he refuses to do so. From the Court’s reading of Shomber’s most recent answers

to these requests, he responds that he cannot admit the matters because he cannot remember what

Case 4:04-cv-04081-HFB Document 45 Filed 03/22/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

happened but he has located records which reflect convictions and suspensions, and he has hired

a consultant to help him with his search. Further, Shomber argues that he has received certain

documents from Moore during discovery and requests additional time to verify these documents

and amend his responses to the requests for admissions and interrogatories, if necessary. 

The Court believes Shomber’s answers are sufficient, in their present form, to meet the

requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. Rule 36 is not a discovery device and does

not authorize a Court to prospectively render determinations concerning the accuracy of a denial

to a request for admission, or to order that the subject matter of the request be admitted because

the opposing party’s unequivocal denial is asserted to be unsupported by the evidence. Lakehead

Pipe Line Co. v. American Home Assur. Co., 177 F.R.D. 454, 458 (D.Minn. 1997)(citations

omitted). Further, the truthfulness of a qualified denial must await trial, and if the requesting

party is forced to prove what was not admitted sanctions are available. National Semiconductor

Corp. v. Ramtron Int’l Corp., 265 F.Supp.2d 71, 74-75 (D.D.C. 2003). Shomber answers that he

has insufficient knowledge to truthfully answer the requests, and he provides details of his efforts

to ascertain the information necessary to answer the requests. The Court is unwilling to delve

into the truthfulness of Shomber’s answers, at this juncture, and the Court has its sanctions power

if Moore is later forced to prove what Shomber should have admitted earlier. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(c)(2).

As noted above, Moore also requests, in the alternative, the Court’s order compelling

Shomber’s verified response to its requests for production contained in its Third Set of

Interrogatories. The Court finds that an order compelling the response to the Third Set of

Interrogatories is inappropriate at this time. In his response, Shomber claims he has received

documents from Moore which would be responsive to the interrogatories and will supplement his

responses as necessary. This seems to the Court to be a reasonable course of action.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contemplate that discovery should be handled, in

large part, by the litigants outside of judicial supervision. The Rules also contain provisions

Case 4:04-cv-04081-HFB Document 45 Filed 03/22/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

requiring litigants to make a good-faith effort to resolve discovery disputes among themselves,

before resorting to judicial intervention. The Court strongly encourages the parties to follow the

letter and spirit of the Rules before filing future discovery-enforcement motions.

Upon consideration, for the foregoing reasons, the Court finds the Motion to Determine

Sufficiency of Answers and Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories (doc. 33) should be

and hereby is denied. The Court declines to award sanctions at this time.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of March, 2006.

 /s/ Harry F. Barnes 

Hon. Harry F. Barnes

U.S. District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-04081-HFB Document 45 Filed 03/22/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>