IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

JACK E. FURAY, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. Case No. 2:12-cv-1048 

 Judge Sargus 

 Magistrate Judge King 

LVNV FUNDING, LLC, et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

 

 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Plaintiff apparently propounded requests for admission to 

defendants LVNV and Resurgent Capitol Services, LP (“Resurgent”), on 

March 29, 2013. Motion to Have Request for Admission of LVNV Funding, 

LLC Admitted (“Plaintiff’s Motion”), Doc. No. 15, p. 1. Plaintiff 

represents that he received a response from defendant Resurgent on 

April 24, 2013, but that, as of May 17, 2013, defendant LVNV had not 

responded to the requests for admission. Id. at pp. 1-2. This matter 

is now before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion, in which plaintiff asks 

the Court to deem those requests admitted. Defendant LVNV opposes 

Plaintiff’s Motion, representing that it responded to plaintiff’s 

requests for admission on two separate occasions. Defendant LVNV 

Funding, LLC’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for 

Admissions Admitted (“Defendant LVNV’s Response”), Doc. No. 18. 

Plaintiff has not filed a reply. 

 Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs 

requests for admission, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 

Case: 2:12-cv-01048-EAS-NMK Doc #: 26 Filed: 08/05/13 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 

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 matter is admitted unless, within 30 

days after being served, the party to whom the request is directed 

serves on the requesting party a written answer or objection addressed 

to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 36(a)(3). 

 Defendant LVNV represents that, on April 22, 2013, it served on 

plaintiff a cover letter and responses, which were contained in the 

same envelope as were defendant Resurgent’s responses. Defendant 

LVNV’s Response, pp. 1-2. Plaintiff acknowledges that he received 

defendant Resurgent’s responses on April 24, 2013. Plaintiff’s 

Motion, p. 1. Defendant LVNV further represents that, after plaintiff 

advised that he had not received LVNV’s responses, “LVNV’s counsel 

sent Plaintiff a second letter [on May 17, 2013], enclosing both the 

original cover letter and responses of Resurgent and LVNV.” Defendant 

LVNV’s Response, p. 2. Defendant LVNV has also submitted copies of 

letters, dated April 22, 2013 and May 17, 2013, that were allegedly 

served on plaintiff and responses to plaintiff’s requests for 

admission with a certificate of service date of April 22, 2013. Id. 

at Doc. No. 18-1. Plaintiff, who did not file a reply in support of 

his motion, does not dispute defendant LVNV’s representations in this 

regard. 

Case: 2:12-cv-01048-EAS-NMK Doc #: 26 Filed: 08/05/13 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3 

The only evidence before the Court suggests that defendant LVNV 

responded to plaintiff’s requests for admission within the time 

permitted by Rule 36. Plaintiff’s Motion, Doc. No. 15, is therefore 

DENIED. 

August 5, 2013 s/Norah McCann King_______ 

 Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 2:12-cv-01048-EAS-NMK Doc #: 26 Filed: 08/05/13 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>