### This Court pre vious ly ha s not ed that “[ t] he ba si s of

theac ti on aga ins t BMH- D was 1 

### re sponde at

supe ri or. Ther ef

ore , a s the only emp loy ee of BMH-D in thi s c as e, summary jud gment in fav or o f Smithwo uldnecessitate summary ju dg ment infavo r of B MH -D.” Young v. Meacham , 999 So. 2d 368, 372 n. 2 (Mi ss . 2008) (“ Young I ”) . I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI

NO. 2 0 1 0 - CA- 0 0 0 7 9 - S CT BOBBI J . YOUNG AND LYNDA L. CART ER, NEXT OF KI N OF CLARENCE S. YOUNG, DECEAS ED
v. D R. RO BERT

H . SM I TH AN D BA PTIST M EM ORI AL HOS PI TAL -DES OTO, I

NC. D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 10/ 06/ 2009 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. AN DR EW C. BA KER COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: DES OTO COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LANTS : W I LL I AM ROBER T BR UCE ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LE ES : DAV I D W . UPC HURCH J O SH U A SH EY W I SE ROBER T K. UPC HURCH J AN ELLE M AR I E LOW REY W A L T E R A L A N D A V IS NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - M EDI CAL M ALP RACTI CE D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 08/ 04/ 2011 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. B obbi J . Y oung and L ynda L . C art er , N ext of K i n of C l ar ence S. Y oung, D ece as ed ( “Y oung”) , a ppeal a n O r derof the C i r cui tCourtof

D eSot o Count y, M i s s i s s i pp i , w hi ch gr ant ed s um m ary j udgm enti n f avorof D r . R obertSm i th and hi s empl oyer , B apt i s tM emori al H os pi t a l
- D e Sot o ( “ BM H - D ”) . T he tr i al courtcert i f i ed the s um m ary j udgm entf orSm i th and 1

### Dr. S mith an d B MH -D are th e on ly p arties as to whichYo un g advan ces this ap peal. 2 

### Th is decisio n d oes n ot imp licate Yo un g’s claims ag ainst fo ur o ther h ealth-care p rov iders. T h e u n d e rl y in g fa c ts in th is c a s e w e re p re v io u s ly s u m m a ri z e d b y th is C o u rt . See 3 Y oung I, 999 So. 2d at369-71. A s such, w e addr es s onl y t hos e f act s per t i nentt o the pr es ent a p p e a l. 

### 2 B M H -D as fina l f

o r th e p u rpo se o f ap p ea l pu rsua n t t o M issi ssipp i R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 54( b) . Y oung ar gues t hatthe ci r cui tcourtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n r ef us i ng t o gr antt he

“ M o tio n to W ith d ra w A d m iss io n s” w h ich w a s filed , w ith o u t e x p lan a tio n o r e x c u se , n e a rly
s even- and- one- half

y ear s af t ers ai d admi s s i ons w er e otherw i s e “c oncl us i vel y es t abl i s hed .

. . .” M iss . R . C iv . P . 3 6 (b ). T h is C o u rt c o n c lu d e s th a t th e c irc u it co u rt’s r u lin g w a s w e ll
w ith in its d is c re tio n u n d e r M is s is s ip p i R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 3 6 . See M i s s . R . C i v. P. 36. W e furtheraf

f i r m the ci r cui tcourt ’ s f i ndi ng thatno genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al f

actr emai ns r egar di ng Y oung’ s cl ai m s agai ns tD r . Sm i th and B M H - D , as w el l as the ci r cui tcourt ’ s gr ant o f s u mm a ry j u d g me n ta s t o Dr . S mi th a n d BMH- D. 2 FACTS 3 ¶ 2 . On Aug u s t22 , 20 0 1 , Y o u n g f i l e d a “ wr o n g f

u l d e a th , me d i c a l ma l p r a c t i c e c l a i m”
a g a in s t h e a lth -c a re p ro v id e rs , in c lu d in g D r. S m ith a n d B M H -D . Y oung I, 999 So. 2d at369- 70. O n O ct ober11, 2001, D r . Sm i th pr opounded “Reques t s f orA dm i s s i on” t o Y oung, w hi ch i ncl uded the f

ol l ow i ng: 1. Pl eas e admi tthatw i th r egar d t o the car e and tr eatm entpr ovi ded t o [ Y oung] by [ D r . Sm i th] y o u h av e n o q u ali fi ed m ed ical ex p ert w h o is ex p ec ted to test if y att he t r i al of

thi s cas e that[

D r . Sm i th] de v iat ed fr o m th e ap p li ca b le st an d ard of car e f oran emer gency r oom phys i ci an. 2 . P lea se ad m it th a t yo u h a v e n o q u a lified m e d ica l ex p e rt w h o is e x p e c ted to stat e a n o p inion at tri al th at an y a ll eg ed d ev iat ion from the a p p li ca b le st an d ard

### Young did not pre se nt eve n an answe r provi ding “l ac k of infor mati on or knowle dge” 4 

### as a ba si s f

or f ai ling to a dmi t or

deny, whi ch cont ende d that a “r ea sona bleinquiry”had be en made an d “th e info rmati o nkn o wnor read ily o btain able . . . [w a]s insufficient to en able [Young] to a dmi t or

deny. ” Mi ss . R. Civ. P. 36( a) .

3 of car e on the par tof

[ D r . Sm i th] pr oxi m at el y caus ed o r contr i but ed t o the d e a th o f [ Y o u n g ]. (E m p h a sis a d d e d .) P u rsu a n t to R u le 3 6 (a ), a “ w ritten a n sw e r o r o b jec tio n ” to th e se re q u e sts f ora dmi s s i on w a s du e “ w i thi n thi r ty d a ys a f t e rs e r vi c e of

the r e qu e s t . ” M i s s . R . Ci v. P. 3 6 (a ). B u t d u rin g th is p e rio d , Y o u n g file d n o “ w ritten a n sw e r[s] o r o b jec tio n [s,] ” n o r d id

4 Y o u n g re q u e s t a d d itio n a l tim e to re s p o n d . Id . R a th e r, Y o u n g d id n o t re sp o n d to th e re q u e st. I n D ece m ber2001, havi ng r ece i ved no “w r i t t en ans w er [ s ] or obj ect i on[ s ] , ” D r . Sm i th and B M H - D f

i l ed “M ot i ons f

orSum m ary Judg m ent, ” ar gui ng thatthe r eques t s w er e dee m ed
a d m itte d b y o p e ra tio n o f l a w . Id . ( abs enta t i m el y “w r i t t en ans w erorobj ect i on, ” the “mat t er of w hi ch an a dm i s s i on i s r equest ed . . . i s admi t t ed . . . . ”) . T hus , they cont ended that Y o u n g ’s ad m issi o n that they d id n o t hav e a “q u ali fi ed m ed ical ex p ert” reg ard ing D r. S m ith ’s
a l l e g e d c o n d u c tme a n tth a tn o g e n u i n e i s s u e s o f ma t e r i a l f

a c tr e ma i n e d a s t o Yo u n g ’ s c l a i ms a g a i n s tDr . S mi th a n d BMH- D. ¶3 . O n D ece m ber21, 2001, s eventy- one days af t e rs er vi ce of

t he “Reques t s f

or A d m issi o n , ” Y o u n g fi led re sp o n ses w h ich d en ied th e re q u ested ad m issi o n s; id e n ti fi ed D r. D av id E . H an sen as o n e o f Y o u n g ’s m ed ical e x p erts; an d “fil ed a m o ti o n for su m m ary j udgm entagai ns tthe i ndi vi dual doc t or s [ , ] ” w i th a n a t t ache d a f f i davi tf r om D r . H ans en w hi ch “s t at ed thatthe doct or s had been negl i genti n t hei rcar e of [ C l ar ence ] Y oung, and had they pr ovi ded t i m el y and prope rcar e, i tw as proba bl e thatY oung w oul d have s ur vi ved. ” Y oung

### 4

I, 999 So. 2d at370. I nexpl i cabl y, Y oung fa i l ed t o fi l e a m ot i on t o w i thdr aw oramend t he
a d mi s s i o n s wh i c h , b y th a tp o i n ti n t i me , we r e “ c o n c l u s i v e l y e s t a b l i s h e d ” b y o p e r a t i o n o f l a w. M i s s . R . C i v. P. 36( b) ( “[ a] ny m att eradmi t t ed underthi s rul e i s concl us i vel y es t abl i s hed
u n less the c o u rto n m o ti o n p erm it s w ith d raw al or a m en d m en t of th e a d m issi o n . ”). ¶4. F o r se v era l ye ars thereaft er, proceed i ng s w ere del ayed du e t o the i nsolvency of a l i abi l i ty i ns ur ance carr i erf orone of the def endant s a nd the pr i ora ppeal t o thi s C our t . T he p ri o r a p p e a l c o n te s te d th e g ra n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. Y oung I, 9 9 9 S o . 2 d a t3 6 8 . On
a p p e a l, th is C o u rt re v e rs e d a n d re m a n d e d fo r f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s . See id . a t 37 3 . T h is C o u rt det erm i ned that“ [ b] y hol di ng that[ Y oung’ s ] s uppl ement al expertdes i gnat i on vi ol at ed the
s chedul i ng or der , the t r i al cour ter r oneous l y equat ed a di s covery deadl i ne w i th a dea dl i ne f or suppl ement at i on of

an expe r topi ni on. ” Id . a t3 72 . Thi s Courtc on c l ud e d tha t“ [ t ] he t r i al
courterr ed by r ef

us i ng t o cons i derD r . H ans en’ s s uppl eme ntal aff i davi ti n det erm i ni ng w h ethe r th ere w as a g en u ine issu e o f m aterial fac t suffi cien t t o d efe at a m o ti o n for su m m ary j udgm ent . ” Id . ¶5. I n Y

oung I, thi s C ou rtch ose n ot t o add res s subst anti vely t he sepa r at e i s s ue of “w hether[Y oung’ s ] f

ai l ur e t o r es pond t o D r . Sm i th’ s r eques t s f oradmi s s i ons w arr ant ed
sum m ary j ud gm ent i n favor of D r. S m i th an d h i s em ployer, B M H -D [ , ] ” st at i ng that because

“ th e tr ia l c o u rt h a s n e v e r r u le d o n th is is s u e , w e d e c lin e to a d d re s s th is a s s ig n m e n t o f e rr o r.” Id . at 37 1 , 3 7 3 . F o ll o w ing d en ial o f th e d efe n d a n ts’ m o ti o n for reh ea ri n g , this C o u rt ’s
m andat e w as i s s ued on February 17, 2009.

### On Marc h 1 3, 20 09 , Dr . Sm i th f i l e d a s ub s t anti ve ly s i m i l ar

“ Re ne we d M oti onf

or 5 

### Summary Ju dg ment.” Additiona lly, c ounse l for

BMH-D noted that Young was s ti llshuf fl ing e xperts at

that 6 

### time . Spe ci fi ca lly, c ounse l f or BMH- D st at ed that , on May 7, 2009, Young had f il ed a des ignati on of a

new nur sing expe rt

“to as se rt cla im s a gainst

[BMH- D,] ” ne arly f

our ye ar s af te r “ [t ] he de adl inepas se d . . . f or [Young] to have the ir

experts desi gnat ed. ” Counse l f or BM H-D asserted th at “Dr. H an sen ’s sup plemental op inio ns . . . w ere abo ut [a sep arate def endant- physi ci an] , not

about Dr . Sm it h[, ] ” s uch t

hat thos e “ suppl em ent alopini ons don’ t addr es s the i ss ue be fore th e [c]our t on t his summary j udgme nt m oti on with re spe ct to Dr . Smith .” 5 ¶6 . U p o n rem an d , o n F eb rua ry 1 9 , 2 0 0 9 , B M H -D fi led a “R en ew ed M o ti o n for S u m m ary J u d g me n t ” b a s e d u p o n Yo u n g ’ s f a i l u r e t o t i me l y r e s p o n d t o t h e r e q u e s t s f o ra d mi s s i o n s . On 5 M ar ch 1 0, 20 09 , ne a r l y s e ve n- a nd
- on e - ha l f ye a r s a f t e rthe a dmi s s i ons w er e dee m ed admi t t ed, Y oung f i l e d a “ M ot i on t o W i thd r a w Adm i s s i on s . ” A tthe J ul y 16 , 2 00 9, h e a r i ng on t he

“ R e n e w e d M o tio n s fo r S u m m a ry Ju d g m e n t,” Y o u n g e x p lain e d th e fa ilu re to p ro v id e tim e ly resp o n ses to the O ctob er 2 0 0 1 “R eq u ests for A d m issi o n , ” a s follow s, “ [w ]e sim p ly d idn ’t h a v e o u re x p e r to p i n i o n a tth e t i me th a tth e Re q u e s t s f o rAdmi s s i o n s we r e p r o p o u n d e d . ” To thi s poi nt , couns el f

orB M H - D r es ponded: i f thatw er e the cas e, they coul d have moved f orm or e t i m e t o r es pond; they c o u ld h a v e re sp o n d e d a s th e y w e re a n d th e n a m e n d e d th e m w h e n th e y g o t th e ir exper topi ni on s i n, bu tthe y d i dn ’ tdo tha t . The y j us ts i mpl y d i dn ’ tr e s po nd. A nd t hen w hen they di d r es pond, i tt ook them year s t o even move t o w i thdr aw th e m . . . . H a v in g o ffe re d n o leg iti m a te e x p lan a tio n o r e x c u se to su p p o rt th e u n tim e ly m o tio n to wi th d r a w, Yo u n g l e a p f

r o g g e d t o c o n t e s t i n g th e l a c k o f p r e j u d i c e t o Dr . S mi th a n d BMH- D. C o u n se l fo r D r. S m ith re sp o n d e d th a t th e c o n se q u e n c e o f fa ili n g to c o m p ly w ith R u le 3 6 is
a n a d m iss io n b y o p e ra tio n o f la w , reg a rd les s o f th e d e fe n d a n ts’ c o n d u c t. 6

### 6

¶7. A f

t ert aki ng t he mat t erunderadvi s ementf orcons i der at i on, on Sept ember9, 2009, the ci r cui tcourti s s ued a f

i ve-page “O pi ni on. ” The anal ys i s began by quot i ng the pert i nent po rt i on s of R ule 36. T he learned ci rcui tj ud ge foun d, as f oll ow s: R u l e 3 6i s t o b e e n

f o r c e d a c c o r d i n gt o i t

s t e r ms . Educa ti ona l

Plac e m e nt Ser vices v. W

il s on , 487 So. 2d 1316 ( M i s s . 1986) . W hen a party doe s not r es pond orobj ectt o re ques t s foradm i s s i ons w i thi n the t i m e per i od al l ow ed by thi s R ul e and doe s notsee k an ext ens i on of t i m e f orr es pondi ng, a courtdoes notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n str i ki ng unt i m el y r es pons es orr ef us i ng w i thdr aw al o f m a tte rs d e e m e d a d m itte d in u n tim e ly f ile d a d m is s io n s . Saw

yerv. H annan , 5 5 6 S o . 2 d 6 9 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 ). I f the pl ai nt i f

f f ai l s t o comm uni cat e t o the tr i al courta r eas on f orthe del ay or a bel i ef thatthey s houl d have be en al l ow ed t o del ay thei r r es pons e, and the c o u rt c a n fin d n o c o m p e lli n g c irc u m sta n c e s to ju s tify a llo w in g a n u n tim e ly r epl y t o avoi d admi s s i ons , the [ c] ourtdoes notabuse i t s dis cr et i on i n not a llo w in g th e a d m is s io n s to b e w ith d ra w n . E ar w ood v. R eev es , 798 So. 2d 508, 5 1 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ). R eques t s ar e dee m ed admi t t ed i f the answ ers orobj ect i ons ar e nots erved w i thi n 30 days of

s ervi ce. T her e appea r s t o be no i s s ue that[ Y oung] di d not fi le re s p o n s e s to th e a d m is s io n s w ith in th ir ty d a y s . The r eques t s f or adm is s i ons go t o the hear tof [ Young’s

] c lai m s . [ Young] as ked to w i thdr aw the adm is s i ons overs eve n year s f r om w hen they w ere s er ved. [ Young] gave no explanat i on as t o w hy they had not s ought w i thdr aw alof

thei rr es pons es w hi ch w e re d e e m e d

a dm itte d

th irty da y s a fterthe y w e re se rv e d

u n til th e D e fen da n ts f i l ed theirm oti ons f

ors um m ar

y j udgm ent . T he [ c] our tal s o can f i nd no c o m p e lli n gc irc u m sta n c e s to ju stify a llo w in ga n u n tim e ly r e p ly to a v o id adm is s i ons . T her ef

or e, the mot i on t o w i thdr aw the admi s s i ons w i l l be deni ed . (E m p h a sis a d d e d .) A s to Y o u n g ’s a rg u m e n t th a t D r. S m ith a n d B M H -D h a d w a iv e d th e ir
r i ghtt o br i ng the “Renew ed M ot i ons f orSum m ary J udgm ent , ” the ci r cui tcourtf ound: [ R ul e] 36 pr ovi des t hatr eques t s f oradmi s s i ons ar e dee m ed admi t t ed by oper at i on of

law i f a party does notres po nd w i thi n the r equi r ed t i m e. T he part y s eeki ng the admi s s i ons a r e [ s i c] notr equi r ed t o t ake any af fi rm at i ve act i on i n thi s r egar d. . . . T he [ c] our tdoes notf i nd the ca s es r egar di ng af f i r m at i ve def

ens es bei ng w ai ved as per suas i ve oranal ogous . A l s o, [ R ul e] 56( b) pr ovi des thata mot i on forsum m ary j udgm entcan be m ade by the D efe n d an t atan y ti m e. T h ere fore , the [c]ou rtfi n d s th a t th e m o ti o n s w ere

### Th e circui t court add ed th at Dr. S mith an d B MH -D “h ad n o reaso n to brin g fo rth 7 

### their mo tionuntil this [c]ourt’s rulin g o n th e prev iou s motio n w as reversed .” 7 t i m el y f i l ed and the ar gum ent s w er e notw ai ved j us tbeca us e they w er e not a ss e rte d e a rlier .[ ] T h e [c ]ou rt fin d s it n o tew o rth y th a t th e S u p re m e C o u rt d id 7 n o t m a k e a n y fin d in g th a t th e a rg u m e n t w a s w a iv e d w h e n th e y d e c lin e d to ru le on the i s s ue. ( E m phas i s i n or i gi nal . ) T he ci r cui tc our tul t i m at el y concl uded thatthe “Renew ed M ot i ons fo r S u m m a ry J u d g m e n t” fi le d b y D r. S m ith a n d B M H -D “ s h o u ld b e g ra n te d .” ¶8. T h ere after, the c ir cu itc o u rte n tered a n “O rderG rant i ng M oti on s f or S um m ary Ju d g m en t” an d a “ F inal Ju d g m en t” i n fav o r of D r. S m ith an d B M H -D , dism issi n g Y o u n g ’s cl ai m s agai ns tbot h w i t h prej udi ce. Fr om thos e rul i ngs , Y oung f i l ed t i m el y “N ot i ce of A p p e a l.” I S S UES ¶9 . T h is C o u rtw il l con side r: ( 1) W hetherthe ci r cui tcourtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n denyi ng Y oung’ s “M ot i on to W ith d ra w A d m is s io n s .” ( 2) W hetherthe ci r cui tc our te rr ed i n gr ant i ng s um m ary j udgm enti n f avorof Dr . S mi th a n d BMH- D. A N A L Y S IS I. W h eth er th e c ircu it co u rt ab u sed i ts discr etion in d en y ing Y o u n g ’s “ M o ti o n to W it h d r a w A d m is s io n s .” ¶10. T hi s C our t has s t at ed that R ul e 36 i s “w el l
- del i neat ed” and “ca rr [ i es ] har s h s anct i ons f orfa i l ur e t o compl y ther ew i th. ” E ar w ood , 7 9 8 S o . 2 d at 5 1 5 . It p ro v id e s, in p e rtin e n t p a rt, th a t: ( a) R e que s t f

or A dm i s s i on. A par ty m ay se r ve upon any otherparty a w r i t t en re q u e st fo r th e a d m iss io n , fo r p u rp o se s o f th e p e n d in g ac tio n o n ly , o f th e tru th

### 8

o f a n y m a tters w ith in th e s c o p e o f R u le 2 6 (b ) se t fo rth in th e re q u e st th a t re late t o s t at ement s oropi ni ons of f actorof the appl i cat i on of

l aw t o f act , i ncl udi ng th e g e n u in e n e ss o f a n y d o c u m e n ts d e sc rib e d in th e re q u e st.

. . . E ach mat t erof

w hi ch an admi s s i on i s r eques t ed s hal l be s epar at el y s etf or th. T h e m a tteris a dm itte d

u n les s, w ith in th irty da y s a fterse rv ice o

f th e re q u e st, o r w ith in su c h sh o rte r o r lo n g e rtim e a s th e c o u rt m a y a llo w , the p a rty to w hom the r eques tis di r ected s er ves upon the par t y r eques t i ng the adm is s i on a w r i t t en ans w erorobj ect i on addr es s ed to the m at t er , s i gned by t he par ty or by hi s att orney, but , unl es s t he cou rtsho rt ens the t i m e, a def endants hal l not be r equi r ed t o s erve ans w er s orobj ect i ons be f or e the expi r at i on of

f or ty- f i ve d a y s a f t e rs e r v i c e o f

th e s u mmo n s u p o n h i m.

. . . ( b) Ef f e c t of A dm i s s i on. A ny m a tte r e sta b lish e d u n d e r th is r u le is conclus i vel

y es tabl is hed unl es s the cour ton m ot i on perm i t s w i thdr aw alor am endm ent

of the adm is s i on . Subj ectt o t he pr ovi s i ons governi ng amendm ent o f a p re -tria l o rd e r, th e c o u rt m ay per m i tw i thdr aw aloram endm ent w hen the p re se n tatio n o f th e m e rits o f th e a c tio n w ill b e su b se rv e d the re b y a n d th e p a rty w ho obt ai ned t he admi s s i on f ai l s t o s at i s f

y the courtthatw i thdr aw al or amendm entw i l l pr ej udi ce hi m i n m ai nt ai ni ng hi s act i on or de f ens e on the m eri t s. M iss. R . C iv. P. 36 (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶1 1 . In ca ses b efo re an d after D eB la n c v. S ta n c il , 8 1 4 S o . 2 d 7 9 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ), this C o u rt h a s c lea rly sta ted th a t, i n a p p ly in g R u le 3 6 , “ d isc re tio n is v e ste d in th e trial ju d g e w ith
r es pectt o w hetherhe orshe w i l l t ake mat t er s as admi t t ed. ” S cog g ins v . B a

p ti st Mem ’l Ho sp .-D eS o to , 967 So. 2d 646, 648 ( M i s s . 2007) ( quot i ng E ar w ood , 7 9 8 S o . 2 d a t 5 1 4 ). See al s o D eBlanc , 814 So. 2d at801 ( quot i ng E ar w ood , 7 98 S o. 2d at51 6) ( “[ m ] echan i sm s exi st
w h e re b y a trial c o u rt m ay hol d an unt i m el y r es pons e does notcons t i tut e a de emed adm i s s i on becau se the tr i al cou rthas br oad dis cr et i on i n pr etr i al m att er s . H ow ever , beca us e of t r i al
c o u rt’s b ro a d d isc re tio n in su c h m a tters , it c e rta in ly m a y a lso re q u ire th a t p a rtie s c o m p ly

### 9

w i th the r ul es as s tat ed . ”) (em p h asis ad d ed ). In c ase s inv o lving u n ex p lai n ed , u n tim e ly
re sp o n se s, th e a p p e llate c o u rts o f th is s tate u n a n im o u sly h a v e e m p h a siz e d th a t R u le 3 6 “ is t o be enf

or ced a ccor di ng t o i t s t erm s . ” E du c. P lacem en t S ervs. , 48 7 So . 2d a t1318. Speci f i cal l y, thi s C our thas s t at ed: [ w ] e do noti ntend . . . t o s ugges tthatany r eques tf oradmi s s i ons t o w hi ch a res po nse, obj ect i on or m oti on fort i m e has notbeen fi l ed b efor e t he thi rty-f i rs t d a y sh o u ld b e tak e n a s irre v o c a b ly a d m itt e d . N e c e ss a ry a n d p ra c tica b le len ien c y , h o w e v e r, ap p e a r to h a v e g e n e ra ted a n a ir o f b e n e v o len t g ra tu ity a b o u t t h e a d m in is tr a tio n o f R u le 3 6 . B u t, o f c o u rs e , ther e is no gr at ui t y about it . C o u rt s c a n n o t g iv e , o rw it h h o ld a t p le a s u re . . . . Mo re th a n a ye a r’s i nact i on on the partof

the party t o w hom the r eques thas been s ubm i t t ed m ust of nece s s i t y r es ul ti n the m at t ers bei ng taken as adm i t t ed i f the r ul e is to have any m eani ng of

f or ce at al l
. This is par t i cul arl y so w her e, as i n the cas e at b a r, n o t o n e w o rdo

f ex p la n a tio n o r ex c u se a

p p e a rs e ith e r in th e re c o rdo r in his bri ef on ap pea lw hy Wi l

son co uld not have respo nd ed to the requ est . Id . See al

s o L angley v. Miles , 956 So. 2d 970, 973 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2006) ( “[ o] n r evi ew , t he
courti s l i kel y t o a f

f i r m the tr i al c our t ’ s e nf

or cementof

Rul e 36 a ccor di ng t o i t s t erm s i f no justi fi ab le ex cu se o r e x p lan ati o n w as o ffered for the d efa u lt . ”); P r im e R x, L L C v. McK endr ee, I nc. , 917 So. 2d 791, 795 ( M i s s . 2005) ( ci t i ng E ar w ood , 7 9 8 S o . 2 d a t 5 1 6 ) (“ it
w oul d notbe an abus e of the tr i al court ’ s di s cr et i on t o r equi r e compl i ance [ w i th R ul e 36]
w h e n th e d e fa u lti n g p a rty o ffe re d n o g o o d re a so n o th e rw ise .”); D eBlanc , 814 So. 2d a t801 ( “w e di d not. . . abandon the conc eptof enf or ci ng [ R ] ul e 36 i n a ccor dance w i th i t s t erm s as expr es s ed i n [E du cation al Placem ent Ser vices ] . . . p a rticu lar ly w h e n n o e x p lan a tio n is
o ffe re d fo r th e d e fa u lt. ” ); Mar tin v. Sim m ons , 571 So. 2d 254, 255 ( M i s s . 1990) ( af f i r m i ng the tr i al co urt ’s act i on of deemi ng r eques t s f

oradmi s s i on admi t t ed w her e i tf ound no ju stifia b le e x c u se fo r th e a tto rn e y ’s f a ilu re to fil e a tim e ly re sp o n se ); Saw yer , 556 So. 2d at 698 ( ci t i ng D ukes v. South Car olina Ins . Co. , 770 F. 2d 545 ( 5th C i r . 1985) ) ( “the contr ol

### 10

of di s covery i s comm i t t ed t o t he s ound di s cr et i on of the t r i al courtand di s cr et i on w as not ab u sed in stri k ing [an] un ti m ely re sp o n se w h en [th e p lai n ti ff] h ad b ee n ev asiv e a n d d il atory t hr ou gh ou tthe l i t i ga t i on a nd of f e r e d n o r e a s on f

orf a i l i ng t o r e s po nd w i thi n the pe r i od p rov ided b y R u le 36 . ”). ¶1 2. Y oun g un persuasi vel y s ubm i t s t hat“[ i ] n cons i der i ng a mot i on t o w i t hdr aw admi s s i ons , tr i al c our t s i n M i s s i s s i ppi ar e r equi r ed t o engage i n the tw o- pr ong anal ys i s s et outi n R ul e 36( b) . ” ( E m phas i s a dded. ) Y oung s eeks t o expand oramend t he rul e by as ki ng thi s Courtt o de cl ar e i tw oul d be “ an abus e of di scr et i on per se f ora tr i al courtt o deny a
m ot i on t o wi thd r a w r e qu e s t s f ora dmi s s i on w i tho ute ng a gi ng i n the tw o- pr on g Rul e 36( b)
a n a ly s is .” ¶13. D r . Sm i th and B M H - D r es pond thatY oung “f i l ed an unt i m el y M ot i on t o W i thdr aw A d m issi o n s lon g after D r. S m ith h ad fi led h is M o ti o n fo r S u m m ary Ju d g m en t. M o reo v er, [ Y oung] f

ai l ed t o demonstr at e j us t i f i abl e excus e i n t hei rs even ( 7) yeardel ay i n att empt i ng to w ith d ra w th e a d m iss io n s.” A s s u c h , th e y c o n ten d th a t th e c irc u it j u d g e “ w a s w ith in h is di s cr et i on and pr oper l y deni ed w i thdr aw al of the admi s s i ons . . . . ” They f ur thernot e that the a n alys is i n R u le 36 (b) inc lud es th e p erm issi v e term “m ay , ” a s op p o sed t o the m an d atory te rm “ s h a ll,” s u c h th a t th e c o n s id e ra tio n , vel non , o f su ch fac tors is w ith in th e circu itco u rt ’s di s cr et i on. ¶ 1 4 . A m a n d a to ry , tw o -p ro n g e d tes t u rg e d b y th e d is s e n t i s c o n tr a ry to b o th th e p lain l anguage of

R ul e 36( b) and pr i orrul i ngs of thi s C our t . I n usi ng the perm i s s i ve t erm “may” rathe r than the m and at ory t erm “shal l , ” R ule 36(b) does n o t c re a te a m a n d a to ry , per se r equi r ementthatthe l ow erc our tmusta ppl y be f or e denyi ng the w i thdr aw al or am endm ent

### 11

o f a d e e m e d a d m is s io n . See D eBlanc , 81 4 S o . 2d at 7 9 9 (em p h asizing th e u se o f th e term

“ m a y ” in R u le 3 6 (b )); E ar w ood , 798 So. 2d at515 ( “[ t ] he perm i s s i ve l anguage of [ R ul e 36]
r es pect i ng t he t r i al cour t ’ s dut i es cl ear l y provi des t hatre l i ef fr om t he def

i ni t e t i m e per i ods i s onl y avai l abl e atthe tr i al court ’ s di s cr et i on. ”) . I n E ar w ood , this C o u rt re jec ted a rg u m e n ts l i ke thos e pr es ent ed t oday, s t at i ng: [n ]otw ith sta n d in g th e lan g u a g e o f th e ru le, E a rw o o d a rg u e s th a t, pu rsu a n t to M .R .C .P . 3 6 , the c o u rt s hould have perm i t t ed w i thdr aw al of the dee m ed ad mi s s i on s b e c a us e the p r e s e nt a t i on o f the c a s e o n the mer i t s woul d be pr om ot ed and thatperm i t t i ng w i thdr aw al w oul d notre s ul ti n undue pr ej udi ce o r de lay to R ee v es in m aintainin g h is acti o n o n the m erit s. Y et E arw o o d ’s dil at ory res po nse had alr ead y d el ayed R eeves’s act i on . E arw oo d’s r espon se w a s n o t fo rth c o m in g u n til a lm o st te n m o n th s a fte r th e c o m p lain t, an d o n ly af t erR eeve s f

i l ed a mot i on t o deem r eques t s admi t t ed, t o compel and for part i al sum m ary j ud gm ent. T heref ore, the tr i al cou rt ’s rel uctance t o ex erci se its b ro a d d isc re tio n in fa v o r o f E a rw o o d is n o t il lo g ica l.

. . . H er e, the t r i al courtf ound no compel l i ng r eas on t o al l ow di s r es pectof M . R . C . P . 36 regar ding t he sett i m e for r espon ding t o request s f or adm i ssi on s; and w e f i nd no compel l i ng r eas on t o hol d thats uch w as an abus e of di s cr et i on. E a rw o o d k n e w o r s h o u ld h a v e k n o w n th e se v e re c o n se q u e n c e s o f fa ili n g to t i m el y r es pond. E ar w ood , 7 9 8 S o . 2 d a t 5 1 6 (e m p h a s is in o ri g in a l) . See al s o D eBlanc , 814 So. 2d at801 ( quot i ng s ame) . T hi s pos i t i on al s o i s cons i s t entw i th fe der al cas es , w hi ch r ef l ectthat“[ e] ven w hen” the tw o f

act or s s etf

or th underF eder al R ul e of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 36( b) “ar e es t abl i s hed, a di s tr i ctcou rtst i l l has di s cr et i on t o deny a r eques tf orl eave t o w i thdr aw oramend an admi s s i on. ” I

n r e Car ney , 258 F. 3d 415, 419 ( 5th C i r . 2001) . T her ef or e, cons i s t entw i th t he pr es um pt i ve conc l us i venes s accom panyi ng the f ai l ur e t o compl y w i th R ul e 36( a) , the perm i s s i ve natur e of

R ul e 36( b) ( i . e. , “may per m i t ”) , and the af or ement i oned di s cr et i on

### In ne it her there cord nor Young’s appe ll at e brie f doe s Young e xplain why no “ la ck 8 

### of in formatio n o r kn ow ledg e”-typ e respo nse, o bjectio n, o r motio n for enlarg ement of time was interp osedor filed. See Mis s. R. Civ. P. 36(a); Ed uc. P lacem ent Servs. , 487 So. 2d at 13 18 (citin g 8 Wright & M iller, Fede ral Prac ticeand Proc edure § 2259 (1970) , and 1985 Pocke t Part) ( “[ h] er e the r ec ord r ef le ct s no respons e be ing f il ed by Wi ls on. No writte n obje ction t o any of

there ques ts for

adm is si ons ha s be en inte rpos ed or fi le d. No m oti on for an e nlarge me nt of

timewit hin whi ch t o re spond a

ppears . In this cont ext , the m atte rs ar e taken a s a dmi tt ed f

or pur pose s of thi s a ction. ”) . This shoul d havebeen f il ed e it her bef ore , or cont em poraneous ly wi th, Young’s 9 

### untime ly res ponse . 12 gr ant ed t o tr i al court s i n addr es s i ng m ot i ons t o w i thdr aw or amend, t hi s C our tconcl udes t hat a tr i al court“may, ” buti s notr equi r ed t o, cons i derthe tw o- pr onged t es ti n denyi ng a mot i on to w ith d ra w o r am en d . M iss. R . C iv. P. 36 (b). W ith that p ri n ciple re affirm ed , this C o u rt nextcons i der s w hetherthe ci rcui tcourt ’ s deni al of Y oung’ s “M ot i on t o W i thdr aw A dm i s s i ons ” cons t i tut ed an a bus e of di s cr et i on. ¶1 5 . T h e c irc u it co u rt’s “ O p in io n ” fu rth e r re fle c ts th at th e c irc u it co u rt to o k in to cons i der at i on al l ar gum ent s pr es ent ed, the appl i cabl e rul e ( R ul e 36) , and oures t abl i s hed
cas el aw i n r ender i ng i t s deci s i on. T he ci r cui tc our tbe gan i t s a nal ys i s by e m phas i zi ng t hat R ul e 36 s houl d be “e nf

or ced acc or di ng t o i t s t erm s . ” E du c. P lacem en t S ervs. , 487 So. 2d at1318. T he ci r cui tcourtthen f ound t hatY oung had fa i l ed t o fi l e a t i m el y r es pons e t o t he

“ R e q u e sts fo r A d m iss io n s” w ith in th irty d a y s a fte r se rv ice th e re o f, as re q u ire d b y R u le 36( a) ; pr ovi ded unt i m el y r es pons es only af t era mot i on f

ors um m ary j udgm entw as f i l ed; 8 “gave no expl anat i on” f orw ai t i ng near l y s even- and- one- hal f ye ar s a f t erthe admi s s i ons had been de emed “concl us i vel y e s t abl i s hed” t o f i l e the “M ot i on t o W i thdr aw A dm i s s i ons ; ” and 9 fa iled to p re se n t an y “ c o m p e lli n g c irc u m sta n c e s to ju stify a llo w in g a n u n tim e ly re p ly to
a v o id ad m iss io n s.” U n d e r th e fac ts p re se n ted , th a t de c isio n w a s h a rd ly a D ra c o n ian o n e w ith

### 13

w h ic h n o re a s o n a b le ju ri s t c o u ld a g re e . See D aws on v. U . S. , 68 F . 3 d 88 6 , 89 6 (5th C ir. 1995 ) ( quot i ng L or ent

z en v. A nders on P es t

Contr ol , 6 4 F . 3 d 3 2 7 , 3 3 0 (7th C ir . 1 9 9 5 )) ( “[ g] ener al l y, a n a bus e of di s cr et i on onl y occur s w her e no r eas onabl e per s on coul d t ake the
v iew a d o p ted b y th e trial c o u rt” ); E ar w ood , 798 So. 2d at517. ¶ 1 6 . “ T h e re q u e sts fo r ad m iss io n s s u b m itt e d to [Y o u n g ] w e re a sim p le m a tter w h ich c o u ld have be en ans w er ed i n a f ew m i nut es t i m e[ , ] ” orf or w hic h a “mot i on f

orenl ar gementof tim e ” c o u ld h a v e b e e n fi le d . Sun bel t R oyal t y, I nc. v. B i g- G D r il ling Co. , 592 So. 2d 1011, 1 0 1 2 (M iss . 1 9 9 2 ); E du c. P lacem en t S ervs. , 487 So. 2d at1318. Y etY oung si m pl y f ai l ed to tim e ly re sp o n d . “R u le 3 6 p ro v id e s a sp e c ific c o n se q u e n c e fo r a p a rty ’s f a ilu re to tim e ly
re sp o n d to a req u e st fo r ad m iss io n , th e co n se q u e n c e b e in g tha t th o se m a tters in th e re q u e sts
ar e dee m ed admi t t ed. ” Pr ime Rx , 9 1 7 S o . 2 d a t 7 9 7 . See al s o Sc og gins , 967 So. 2d at649 ( “a di l i gentparty w i l l t ake gr eatpai ns t o ens ur e the re ques t s have e i therbeen a dm i t t ed or d en ied, as the y are au tom ati ca ll y d ee m ed ad m itted a ft er th irty da y s”). T h u s, th o se “ [m ] att ers a d m itt e d b y d efa u ltu n d er R u le 36 (a) [w ere ] estab li sh ed u n less an d u n ti l th e tri al co u rt al l ow [ ed] a m endmentorw i thdr aw al by m ot i on underR ul e 36( b) . ” D eBlanc , 814 So. 2d at 8 0 0 . W ith o u t an y e x c u se fo r th a t in iti a l u n tim e lin e ss , Y o u n g th e n p ro c e e d e d to w a it n e a rly seven-and -one-hal f years before f i l i ng the “M oti on t o W i thd raw A dm i ssi on s. ” U nd er these circu m stan ce s o f un ex p lai n ed , u n ti m ely re sp o n ses, co u p led w ith an ex ce ssive d elay b efo re see k ing leav e to w ith d raw , the c ir cu itco u rtw as w ell w ith in it s d iscreti o n in d en y ing Y o u n g ’s “M ot i on t o W i thdr aw A dm i s s i ons . ” See L angley , 9 5 6 S o . 2 d a t 9 7 3 ; Pr ime Rx , 917 So. 2d
a t 7 9 5 ; D eBlanc , 8 1 4 S o . 2 d a t 8 0 1 ; E ar w ood , 7 9 8 S o . 2 d a t 5 1 6 ; Ma rtin , 571 So. 2d at255; Saw yer , 5 5 6 S o . 2 d a t 6 9 8 ; E du c. P lacem en t S ervs. , 487 So. 2d at1318.

### 14

¶17. For cert ai n, al l court s , couns el , and l i t i gant s w oul d rather see cas es deci ded on t he
m er i t s . B utthi s as pi r at i onal goal carr i es w i th i ta com m ens ur at e r es pons i bi l i ty i m pos ed upon al l t o abi de by the R ul es a nd the deci s i ons of ourcourt s , as oppos ed t o s eeki ng a bene vol ent d e c is io n fr o m a tria l ju d g e . See D eBlanc , 814 So. 2d at801 ( ci t i ng E ar w ood , 798 So. 2d at 5 1 6 ) (“R u le 36 is t o b e en forc ed d esp it e the fac t th at ha rsh c o n seq u en ce s m igh t r esu lt. . . . ”). B u t fo r Y o u n g ’s c o n d u c t (o r lac k the re o f), p e rh a p s th a t go a l co u ld h a v e b e e n a c h iev e d in th is
cas e. I n s um m at i on, w e conc l ude thatY oung’ s as s ert i on of a bus e of di s cr et i on m us tf

ai l , as t he re cor d cl ear l y r evea l s the ci r cui tj udge pr oper l y f ol l ow ed the appl i cabl e rul e and our
cas el aw i nt erpr et i ng s ame. II . W h e th e r th e cir c u it co u r t e r r e d in g r a n tin g su m m a r y ju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f Dr . S mi t h a n d BM H- D. ¶18 . “T h e stan d ard o f revi ew for a tri al cou rt ’s grant or den i al of a m oti on forsum m ary j udgm enti s de novo. ” J. R . v. Mal ley , 62 S o . 3 d 9 0 2 , 9 0 5 (M iss. 2 0 1 1 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of

C i vi l Pr ocedur e 56( c) provi des , i n per t i nentpar t , t hatsumm ary j udgm ent “s hal l be r ender ed f

or thw i th i f

the pleadi ngs, depos i t i ons , ans w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es and admi s s i ons on f

i l e, t ogetherw i th t he af

f i davi t s , i f

any, s how thatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as to a n y m a te ri a l f

a c t a n d th a t th e m o v in g p a rt y is e n title d to a ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f l a w .” M i ss. R . C i v. P . 56(c) . “[ W ] hen a party, opp osi ng s um m ary j ud gm ent on a cl ai m or defense
as t o w hi ch thatparty w i l l bearthe bur den of pr oof a ttr i al , f ai l s t o make a s how i ng s uf f i ci ent to e sta b lish a n e ss e n tial e lem e n t o f th e c laim o r d e fe n se , the n a ll o th e r fa c ts a re im m a ter ial, and the m ovi ng pa r ty i s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” G allow ay v. Trave lers I n s. Co. , 5 1 5 S o . 2 d 6 7 8 , 6 8 4 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ).D r . Sm i th and B M H - D add thatt o hol d otherw i s e “w oul d r equi r e them t o pr edi ctt he 10 fu tu re o f [ Y o u n g ’s ] fa ilu re to c o m p ly w ith th e d is c o v e ry ru le s .” 

### Acc ording to Dr. Smi th and BMH-D, “[a ] s themoti on to withdraw in thi s c as e wa s 11 

### deni ed, . . . [ Young] w[a s] not a ll owed t o atte mpt to c ontradi ct

thematt er s ‘ conc lus ively es ta bli she d.’ ” 15 ¶19. Y oung s ubm i t s t hat D r. S m i th and B M H - D “w ai ved” thei r “R enew ed M ot i ons f or Sum m ary J udgm ent ” bas ed upon the “f ai l ur e t o t i m el y and r eas onabl y purs ue” a m ot i on f or s um m ary j udgm ent . Y oung f ur thera s s ert s that“ [ e] ven w i thoutw i thdr aw al of the 2001 admi s s i ons , a genui ne i ssue as t o devi at i ons f r om the ac cept ed s t andar d of pr of es s i onal pr act i ce on the partof

D ef endant s , a nd c aus at i on of the dea th of

[ C l ar ence Y oung] exi s t s , and th e tr ia l c o u rt e rr e d in g ra n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f D e fe n d a n ts .” ¶20. A s t o Y oung’s w ai ver ar gum ent , D r . Sm i th and B M H - D m ai nt ai n that R ul e 36 i s a

“ s e lf -e x e c u tin g ” “ d is c o v e ry d e v ic e ” th a t “ d o e s n o t r e q u ir e a n y a c tio n o n th e p a rt [o f] a D ef endantf orm att er s t o be dee m ed admi t t ed and c oncl us i vel y es t abl i s hed. B eca us e s uch f ai l ur es t o r es pond r esul tin a j udi ci al admi s s i on, and notthe cr eat i on of an ‘ af f i r m at i ve d e fe n se ,’ . . . w a iv e r ar g u m e n ts a re m isp lac e d .” R e g a rd in g su m m a ry ju d g m e n t, D r. S m ith 10 and B M H -D res po nd that, “[ p] ursuantt o the r equ i rem ents of R ule 36, the P lai n ti ff s’ admi s s i ons w er e dee m ed admi t t ed by oper at i on of l aw . ” B eca us e Y oung “made al l egat i ons o f m e d ic a l m a lp ra c tic e [,]” th e n “ e x p e rt m e d ic a l te s tim o n y w a s e s s e n tia l to th e irc la im s . . .

. W i th thes e mat t er s concl us i vel y es t abl i s hed, [ ] ther e ar e no genui ne i s s ues of mat er i al f act 11
as t o w hether[ Y oung] w oul d be abl e t o es t abl i s h a vi abl e cl ai m f orm edi cal negl i gence . ” See Hubbard v. W

ansley , 9 5 4 S o . 2 d 9 5 1 , 9 5 6 -57 (M iss. 2 0 0 7 ). In sh o rt , D r. S m ith an d B M H -D
co n tend that Y o u n g “ a d m itt e d that they d id n o t hav e a q u ali fi ed m ed ical ex p ert t o su p p o rt

### This is tr ue unl es s the moti ons we rein vi olati on of a loc alrul e or

a pr etri alorde r. 12 

### See Mis s. R. Civ. P. 16. 16 thei rm edi cal negl i gence c l ai m ” and “w her e a m att erde emed admi t t ed i s a n e s s ent i al el ement o f t h e c la im p re s e n te d , th e n s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t is p ro p e rl y g ra n te d o n th a t c la im .” ¶ 2 1 . T h is C o u rt re

jec ts Y o u n g ’s w a iv e r ar g u m e n t ba se d o n th e sa m e re a so n in g a n d lo g ic
u s e d b y th e c ir c u it ju d g e . See ¶ 7 supra . F ir s t, th e a d m is s io n e x is ts b y o p e ra tio n o f l a w . See M i ss. R . C i v. P . 36 . A n ad m i ssi on i s not an aff i rm at i ve d efen se. R athe r, i test abli shes a f actual m att er f

or pu rpos es of

eval uat i ng the el ement s of a party’ s cl ai m ordef ens e. M i s s i s s i p p i Ru l e o f

Ci v i l P r o c e d u r e 5 6 ( b ) p r o v i d e s th a t“ [ a ] p a r ty a g a i n s tw h o m a c l a i m, c o u n te rc la im , o r c ro s s -c la im is a s s e rt e d o r a d e c la ra to ry ju d g m e n t is s o u g h t m a y , a ta ny t i me , m ove w i th orw i thoutsupport i ng af f i davi t s fora sum m ary j udgm enti n hi s f avoras t o al l or an y p art th ere o f. ” M iss. R . C iv. P. 56 (b) (em p h asis ad d ed ). A s a m o tio n fo r su m m ary j udgm entcan be m ade a tany t i m e, i ti s i ncongruous t o ar gu e the “ R enew ed M ot i ons f or Sum m ary J udgm ent ” w er e unt i m el y. 12 ¶22. T hi s C our thas s t at ed that“[ a] m att erthati s deemed admi t t ed does notr equi r e f ur ther p ro o f. A ny a dm issi on tha tis not am end ed o r w i thdraw n ca nn ot be rebutted b y con trary t est i m ony or ign ored b

y the co urteven if

the p art y ag ainst

w ho m i tis di rectedo

ff ers m ore cr edi bl e ev i dence . ” D eBlanc , 8 1 4 S o . 2 d a t 8 0 1 (q u o tin g 7 Ja m e s W . M o o re , e t a l., Mo o re’s Feder alP r act i ce ¶ 3 6 . 0 3 [2] , at 3 6 -15 (3d ed . 20 0 1 ) ( foo tno tes o m itted)) (em p h asis ad d ed ). See a l so Pr ime Rx , 917 So. 2d at795 ( quot i ng D eBlanc , 814 So. 2d at800) ( w hen a mat t er is “ c o n c lu siv e ly e sta b lish e d ” u n d e r R u le 3 6 , it m a y n o t b e “ o ffs e t b y a c o n flictin g a n sw e r to interrog atories.”); I

n re Car ney , 258 F. 3d at420 ( ci t i ng D ukes , 770 F. 2d at548- 49) ( “[ s ] i nce

### 17

R ul e 36 admi s s i ons , w hetherexpr es s or by def aul t , ar e concl us i ve as t o t he mat t er s admi t t ed, they ca nnotbe over come atthe s um m ary j udgm e nts t a ge by c on tr adi ct ory af f i davi tt es t i m ony orotherevi dence i n t he summ ary j udgm entre cor d. ”) . T he ef f ectof the s ubj ectadmi s s i ons w as thatY oung’ s m edi cal m al pr act i ce c l ai m s agai ns tD r . Sm i th and B M H - D l acke d any “q u ali fi ed m ed ical ex p ert” to testi fy th at D r. S m ith “d ev iat ed from the a p p li ca b le st an d ard
o f c a re fo r an em e rg e n c y ro o m p h y sic ian ” o r th a t “a n y a lleg e d d e v iatio n fro m th e a p p lica b le stan d ard o f ca re” b y D r. S m ith “ p ro x im ately c au sed o r co n tr ibu ted to ” C laren ce Y o u n g ’s death. T hus , the es s ent i al e l ement s of br each of

duty and ca us at i on w er e abs ent . “The t r i al
c o u rt h a d n o d u ty to re v ie w a n y p le a d in g s , d e p o s itio n te s tim o n y , in te rr o g a to ry a n s w e rs , e tc ., t o r ef ut e a mat t erconcl us i vel y es t abl i s hed by def endant s ’ deem ed adm i s s i ons . . . . ” P r ime Rx , 917 So. 2d at796. B as ed upon the dee m ed admi s s i ons , no genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fa c t re m a in a s to Y o u n g ’s c laim s a g a in st D r. S m ith a n d B M H -D . T h u s, th e c irc u it co u rt d id
n o te rri n g r a n t i n g s u mm a r y j u d g me n ti n f a v o ro f Dr . S mi th a n d BMH- D. CO NC L US I ON ¶ 2 3 . In su m , this C o u rt c o n c lu d e s th a t t h e c ir c u it c o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in denyi ng Y oung’ s “M ot i on t o W i thdr aw A dm i s s i ons . ” G i ven thos e admi s s i ons , no genui ne i s s u e s o f ma t e r i a l f

a c tr e ma i n a s t o Yo u n g ’ s c l a i ms a g a i n s tDr . S mi th a n d BMH- D. T h ere fore , this C o u rt affi rm s the circu itco u rt ’s “O rde r G ran ti n g M o ti o n s for S u m m ary J u d g me n t ” i n f

a v o ro f Dr . S mi th a n d BMH- D. ¶24. AF F I RM ED . W AL LE R, C. J . , CARL S ON AN D D I CKI NS ON, P . J J . , CHANDL ER , P I ER CE AND KI NG, J J . , CONCUR. W AL LE R, C. J . , S P EC I AL LY CONCURS W I TH SE P A R A T E W R I T T E N O P I N I O N JO I N E D B Y D I C K I N SO N , P . J. , A N D K I N G , J.

### 18

K I T C H E N S , J ., D I S S E N T S W I T H S E P A R A T E W R I T T E N O P I N I O N . L A M A R , J ., NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . W AL L E R, CH I E F J US T I CE , S P E CI AL L Y C ON CU RR I NG : ¶2 5 . I ag ree w ith the m ajority ’s a ffi rm an ce o f su m m ary jud g m en t in fa v o r o f D r. R o b ert Smi th a ndBapt i s tM e mor i a l H os pi t al
- D eSot o, I nc. I w r i t e s epar at el y, how ever , t o emphasi ze the tw o -pro n g ed testo u tl ined in R u le 36 (b) o f the M issi ssipp i R u les o f C ivil P roc ed u re. I n d e c id in g to a llo w w ith d ra w a l o r a m e n d m e n t o f a d e e m e d a d m iss io n , th e trial ju d g e sh o u ld
cons i derw hetherw i thdr aw al oramendm entpr om ot es the pr es ent at i on of the under l yi ng m e rits, a n d w h e th e r th e o p p o sin g p a rty h a s s h o w n th a t th e w ith d ra w a l o r a m e n d m e n t w o u ld
re su lt i n u n fa ir p re

ju d ice to th e p a rty ’s a b ili ty to m a in tain th e c a se o r d e fe n d a g a in st it. M . R . C . P 36( b) . T hi s C our thas di r ect ed tr i al court s t o car ef ul l y exami ne R ul e 36( b) m ot i ons u n d e r th is tw o -p ro n g e d te s t. D eB la n c v. S ta n c il , 8 1 4 S o . 2 d 7 9 6 , 8 0 2 (M iss . 2 0 0 2 ). T h is is th e b e s t p ra c tic e , th o u g h n o t e x p lic itly a p p lie d h e re . DI CKI NS ON, P . J . , AND KI NG, J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON. KI T CH E NS , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶26. I n D eB la n c v. S ta n c il , 814 So. 2d 796 ( M i s s . 2002) , thi s C our t thor oughl y exami ned
ourj ur i s prudence r egar di ng M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 36 and he l d, unequi vocal l y, that“[ j ] us tas a mat t eradmi t t ed i s ‘ concl us i vel y es t abl i s hed’ by the expr es s t erm s of t he R ul e, the tr i al courti s l i kew i s e di r ected t o car ef ul l y exami ne a R ul e 36( b) m ot i on underthe tw o- pr ong t es tther e pr ovi ded. ” I d. at 802 ( emphasi s added) . T he maj or i ty’ s hol di ng t hat “a tr i al court‘ m ay’ buti s notr equi r ed t o cons i derthe tw o- pr onged t es ti n denyi ng a mot i on t o w i thdr aw oramend, ” di r ect l y cont r avene s t hi s C our t ’ s unequi vocal hol di ng i n D e bl anc ,

### 19

814 So. 2d at802 ( M i s s . 2002) . B eca us e both pr ongs of R ul e 36( b) w ei gh heavi l y i n f avor of the pl ai nt i f

f s , and bec aus e the def

endant s cl ear l y abandone d thei rr el i ance on the dee m ed admi s s i ons , the tr i al courtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n de nyi ng the pl ai nt i f f s ’ m ot i on t o w i thdr aw and s ubs equent l y gr ant i ng s um m ary j udgm enti n f avorof D r . Sm i th and B M H - D . I nas m uch
a s I w o u ld re v e rs e th e g ra n t o f s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t a n d re m a n d fo r a tr ia l o n th e m e ri ts , I
re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. ¶27 . W hil e the tr ial cou rt gen eral l y has broad dis cret i on ov er pretri al dis cov ery m at t ers , m att er s concl us i vel y es t abl i s hed ar e notnece s s ar i l y “i rr evocabl y admi t t ed. ” E duc. P lacem ent

Ser vs. v. W

il s on , 4 8 7 S o . 2 d 1 3 1 6 , 1 3 1 8 (M iss. 1 9 8 6 ). R u le 36 p lace s a firm deadl i ne on f

i l i ng r es pons es t o r eques t s f oradmi s s i on buti s no t abl y s i l entas t o the t i m i ng of m ot i ons t o w i thdr aw deemed admi s s i ons . I n eval uat i ng m ot i ons t o w i t hdra w oramend deemed admi s s i ons , thi s C our thas pr onounced: W h ile R u le 3 6 is to b e a p p lied a s w ritten , itis n o t in te n d e d to b e a p p lied in D r aconi an f

as hi on. I f

the R ul e m ay s om et i m es s eem har s h i n i t s appl i cat i on, the har s hnes s m ay be amel i or at ed by the tr i al court ’ s pow ert o gr ant amendm ent s orw i thdr aw al s of admi s s i ons i n prope rci r cumst ance s . T he tr i al court ’ s rul i ng i n thi s r egar d i s s ubj ectt o r evi ew for abus e of di s cr et i on. T he pu rpose of the rul e is t o d et erm i ne w hich f act s ar e no ti n d i spute. [ 7 Jam es W . M o o re , e t a l., Moor e’s FederalP r act i ce ¶ 3 6 .0 2 [1 ] a t 3 6 -3 7 ) ( 3 d e d . 2 0 0 1 )]. I ti s noti nt ended t o be us ed as a vehi cl e t o es cape adj udi cat i on of the f act s by m e a n s o f a rtifice o r h a p p e n sta n c e . Ju st a s a m a tter a d m itt e d is “ c o n c lu siv e ly est abli shed” b y the exp ress term s of the R ule, the tr i al cou rti s l i kew i se dir ect ed to caref

ull y ex am i ne a R ule 36(b) m oti on un d er th e tw o-prong t est ther e pr ovi ded. D eBlanc , 8 1 4 S o . 2 d a t 8 0 1 -8 0 2 . T h u s, w h ile R u le 3 6 g ra n ts d isc re tio n to th e tria l c o u rt in
cons i der i ng a mot i on t o w i thdr aw oramend, “i ti s the pol i cy of ours ys t em of j udi ci al admi ni s tr at i on t o f

avordi s pos i t i on of

cas es on thei rm er i t s . ” B e ll , 467 So. 2d a t661 ( ci t i ng

### 20

Ma n n in gv. L o v e tt , 2 2 8 M iss . 1 9 1 , 1 9 5 , 8 7 S o . 2 d 4 9 4 , 4 9 6 (1 9 5 6 ); S. W . Se c . I ns . Co. v. T r eadw ay , 1 1 3 M is s . 1 8 9 , 1 9 7 , 7 4 S o . 1 4 3 , 1 4 5 (1 9 1 7 )) . ¶2 8. T he tr i a l j ud ge i n the p r e s e ntc a s e d e ni e d the p l a i nt i f f s ’ m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw t he deemed admi s s i ons beca us e ( 1) the pl ai nt i f f s di d notof

f era n e xpl anat i on f

orthe s even- year d e lay in se e k in g a w ith d ra w a l an d b e c a u se (2 ) th e re w e re “ n o c o m p e lli n g c irc u m sta n c e s to j us t i f y al l ow i ng an unt i m el y r epl y t o avoi d admi s s i ons . ” A l though the tr i al j udge’ s opi ni on qu oted the langu age o f R ule 36(b), i td i d no tap ply t he tw o-prong ed t estof that rule, that i s, w hether“the pr es ent at i on of the mer i t s of

the ac t i on w i l l be s ubs erved” and w hether“the p a rty w h o o b tain e d th e a d m iss io n fails to sa tisfy th e c o u rt th a t w ith d ra w a l o r a m e n d m e n t w ill pr ej udi ce hi m i n m ai nt ai ni ng hi s act i on ordef ens e on the mer i t s . ” M . R . C . P. 36( b) . I ns t ead, the tr i al courtf

ocus ed on the del ay betw een the r eques t s f oradmi s s i on and the m oti on f or w i thd raw al , no ton the eff ecthis rul ing w ou l d h ave o n resol uti on of the case o n it s m eri t s. ¶29. O n appea l , the pl ai nt i f f s corr ect l y argue t hat t his del ay, s t andi ng on i t s ow n, i s not s uf f i ci entt o j us t i f

y the deni al of

a mot i on t o w i thdr aw deemed admi s s i ons , and thatthe tr i al
courtm us tappl y t he t w o- pr onged t es tof Rul e 36( b) . A s not ed above , thi s C our tcl ear l y has hel d t hat, “[j ] us tas a mat t eradmi t t ed i s ‘ concl us i vel y es t abl i s hed’ by the expr es s t erm s of the R ul e, the tr i al courti s l i kew i s e di r ected t o car ef ul l y exami ne a Rul e 36( b) m ot i on under the tw o- pr ong t es tt her e pr ovi ded. ” D eBlanc , 81 4 S o. 2d at 80 2 (em ph asi s added ). T hu s, w h e n a p a rty files a m o tio n to w ith d ra w o r a m e n d d e e m e d a d m iss io n s, th e trial c o u rt is obl i ged t o appl y the tw o- pr onged t es tenunci at ed i n R ul e 36( b). T he del ay i n s eeki ng a w i thdr aw al oramendm ent , and the r eas ons f ort he del ay, ar e f

act or s t hatm us tbe cons i der ed i n det erm i ni ng w hetherther e w as pre j udi ce t o t he nonm ovi ng par ty; butdel ay al one w i l l not

### 21

s u p p o rt d e n ia l o f a m o tio n to w ith d ra w o r a m e n d . See I n re D is s oluti on of

Mar r iage of L eve r ock and H

am by , 23 So. 3d 424 ( M i s s . 2009) ( al though party gave no e xpl anat i on f or h is u n tim e ly re sp o n se to re q u e sts fo r a d m iss io n , h e c o u ld m o v e to w ith d ra w d e fa u lt
a d m is s io n s o n r e m a n d ). C f. S c og g in s v . B a

p tist Me m ’l Ho sp .-D e so to , 967 So. 2d 646, 649 ( M i s s . 2007) ( delay i n r es pondi ng t o r eques t s s uf f i ci entt o deem r eques t s admi t t ed w hen d ilato ry p a rty m a d e n o m o tio n to w ith d ra w o r a m e n d ); Mar tin v. Sim m ons , 571 So. 2d 254 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 ) (sam e). ¶ 3 0 . W ith re sp e c t to th e first p ro n g o f th e tes t, i.e., w h e th e r “ th e p re se n tatio n o f th e m e rits of the ac t i on w i l l be s ubs erved” by a l l ow i ng the w i thdr aw al , the part i es do notdi s put e that
a trial o n th e m e rits is fo re c lo se d if th e d e fa u lt ad m iss io n s a re a llo w e d to sta n d . D r. S m ith h a d a sk e d th e p lain tiffs to a d m it th a t th e y h a d en g a g e d n o m e d ica l ex p e rt t o tes tify o n th e ir behal f . W i thoutan expe r t , one ca nnotes t abli s h caus at i on i n a medi cal m al pr act i ce c as e. Hubbard v. W

ansley , 954 So. 2d 951, 957 ( M i s s . 2007) . I ndeed, the tr i al courtr ecogni zed th a t “[t]h e re q u e sts fo r a d m iss io n s g o to th e h e a rt o f th e P lain tiffs’ c laim s.” T h u s, the m e rits of the ca s e w i l l notbe adj udi cat ed i f the i s s ue cont i nues t o be dee m ed admi t t ed. ¶3 1. W i t h r es pectt o t he s e c on d pr on g, thi s Courthas nots quar el y addr es s ed w hat
cons t i tut es pr ej udi ce w i th r es pectto Rul e 36( b) m ot i ons . H ow ever , cas es i nt erpr et i ng the fe d e ra l ru les o f c iv il p ro c e d u re h o ld th a t, “[t] h e re fe re n c e to ‘p re ju d ice ’ in R u le 3 6 (b ) is to the pr ej udi ce s t emm i ng f r om r el i ance on the bi ndi ng ef f ectof the admi s s i on. ” 8B C har l es A la n W ri g h t, e t a l., Fede ra l P ra ct i ce an d P rocedu re §2264, at387- 95 ( 3d ed. 2010)

### Ru le 36 (b) of the F ederal Rules o f Civ il Pro cedure is almost id entical to our Ru le 13 

### 36 (b): A matter admitted und er this ru le is co nclu sivelyestab lishedunless the co urt, onmotio n, per

mi ts the adm is si on t o bewi thdrawn or am ende d. Subj ec t to Ru le 16 (e), the co urt maypermit w ithdrawal o r amendmen t if i t w ou ld prom otethepre se ntati on of the m erit s of the action and if

thecourt i s not per sua ded that

it would prej udic e the re ques ting party in maint aining or def ending theac ti on on theme ri ts . An a dmission unde r this rul e i s not an adm is si on for

any other

purpos e and cannot beuse d aga ins t t he party in any othe r proce eding. 22 ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . Forexampl e, the Fi f th C i r cui tC ourtof

A ppeal s , cons trui ng R ul e 36 13
o f th e F e d e ra l R u les o f C iv il P ro c e d u re , h a s sta ted th a t “ th e p re ju d ice c o n tem p late d b y R u le 3 6 (b ) r e lates to sp ec ial d if fi cu lt ies a p arty m ay fac e c au sed b y a su d d en n ee d to o b tain evi dence upon w i thdr aw al oramendm entof an admi s s i on. ” A m er i can A uto. A s s ' n, I nc. v. A A A L egal

Clini c of

Jef f ers on Cr ooke , 930 F. 2d 1117, 1120 ( 5th C i r . 1991) ( ci t i ng B r ook V il lage N . A s s ocs . v. G en eral

E lec. Co. , 6 8 6 F .2 d 6 6 , 7 0 (1 st C ir. 1 9 8 2 )). T h is under s t andi ng of

pr ej udi ce, i n thi s cont ext , i s noti ncons i s t entw i th thi s C our t ’s rul i ng that pr ej udi ce, w i th r es pectt o amendm entof pl eadi ngs , r es ul t s “w here al l ow ance of t he amendm entw oul d bur den t he adver s e par ty w i th m or e di s covery, pr epar at i on, and expe ns e, p a rticu lar ly w h e re th e a d v e rse p a rty w o u ld h a v e littl e tim e to in v e stig a te a n d a c q u a in t it se lf
w i th the new m att er . ” T XG In tra sta te P ip e lin e Co . v. G ro ss n ick le , 71 6 S o. 2 d 991, 1011 ( M i s s . 1997) ( ci t i ng N

atur al Mot he rv. Pate r nal

Aunt , 5 8 3 S o . 2 d 6 2 4 , 6 1 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 )). ¶32. I ti s pl ai n thatpr ej udi ce doe s note xi s tw i th r es pectt o the def endant s i n thi s cas e; they cannots how that t hey rel i ed on the def aul tadmi s s i ons ei therent i r el y ori n part . T he pl ai nt i f f s pr ovi ded the def

endant s t he i dent i ty of

thei rexpertand a s um m ary of hi s expec t ed test im o n y o n D ec em b er 2 1 , 2 0 0 1 . A lth o u g h D r. S m ith h ad fi led a m o tio n fo r sum m ary

### 23

j udgm entthe day be f

or e, bas ed on the pl ai nt i f f s ’ f ai l ur e t o re s pond t o re ques t s f oradmi s s i on, D r . Sm i th abandone d t hatm ot i on and chose t o proc eed by f ul l y engagi ng i n t he usua l pr etr i al dis cov ery. B oth D r. S m i th and B M H -D part i ci pated i n d epo si ng D r. H ansen, the p l ai nti ff s’
e xp e r t , a nd bo th s ou gh ts umm a r y j ud gmen tba s e d o n Dr . H a ns e n’ s de po s i t i on t e s t i m ony. D u rin g th a t t im e , a n d th ro u g h th e e n su in g y e a rs o f a c tiv e lit ig a tio n o f th is c a se , D r. S m ith
nevers oughtt o sethi s ori gi nal summ ary j udgm entm ot i on forhear i ng. T hatdi d notoccur u n ti l M arc h o f 2 0 0 9 , w h en D r. S m ith “tag g ed alon g ” in th e h o sp it al’s ren ew al of D r. S m ith ’s dor m ant2001 s um m ary j udgm entm ot i on. N ot abl y, B M H - D di d notr ai s e t he i s s ue of t he p lai n ti ffs’ un ti m ely re sp o n se to D r. S m ith ’s req u ests u n ti l th e c ase w as a p p ea led to this C o u rt on othergr ounds . C l ear l y, the def endant s w er e notpr ocee di ng i n r el i ance on the deemed
a d m iss io n s, b u t in ste a d fo rso o k the m w h ile a c tiv e ly e n g a g in g in th e d isc o v e ry p ro c e ss w ith
r es pectt o the pl ai nt i f

f s ’ m edi cal expert . T hatthe pl ai nt i f f s di d notfi l e a mot i on t o w i thdr aw the def aul tadmi s s i ons f

ors even ye ar s di d nothi ng t o a f f ectde f endant s ’ act i ons i n def

endi ng thi s cas e. T he s eventy- one days betw een the day the request s w er e f i l ed and the day they
w er e ans w er ed i s negl i gi bl e w hen compar ed t o t he ei ghtyear s t hatpass ed betw een the f i l i ng o f th e c o m p lain t an d th e late st m o tio n fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t. ¶33. T he maj or i ty re l i es heavi l y on E ar w ood v. R eev es , 798 So. 2d 508 ( M i s s . 2001) , and E ducati onal

P lacem ent

Ser vices , 487 So. 2d 1316, butboth of thos e ca s es w er e dec i ded bef or e D eBlanc , 814 So. 2d 796, and both ar e r eadi l y di s t i ngui s habl e. I n E ducati onal P lacem ent

Ser vices , 487 So. 2d at1818, the def endantne verr es ponded t o the r eques t s f or admi s s i on; the def

endant “appe ar [ ed] s i m pl y t o ha ve i gnor ed the r eques t . ” I n det erm i ni ng thatthe mat t er s had bee n admi t t ed, the C our tr eas oned that“[ m ] or e than a ye ar ’ s i nact i on on

### 24

the partof

the party t o w hom the r eques tha s be en s ubm i t t ed m us tof ne ces s i ty r es ul ti n t he mat t e r s be i ng t a ke n a s a dmi t t e d i f the rul e i s t o h a ve a ny mea ni ng of f or ce atal l . ” I

d. at 1 3 1 8 . In th e p re se n t c a s e , th e p lain tiffs d id re sp o n d to th e re q u e sts fo r a d m iss io n , alb e it unt i m el y. M or eover , the C our ti n E ducati onal P lacem ent

Ser vices , 487 So. 2d at1818 n. 1, not ed thatthe s ubj ectmat t erof the r eques t s r el at ed t o i s s ues of i n p e rs o n a m j ur i s di ct i on and
venue a nd that“thos e def ens es ar e s ubj ectt o w ai veri f nott i m el y as s ert ed. ” ( C i t i ng M . R . C . P. 12( h) ( 1) ) . T hus , unl i ke t he cas e bef or e us, the dee m ed admi s s i ons i n E ducati onal P lacem ent

Ser vices w o u ld n o t h a v e f o re c lo s e d “ th e p re s e n ta tio n o f t h e m e ri ts o f t h e a c tio n .” M .R .C .P . 3 6 (b ). ¶3 4. The o pi ni on i n E arw ood , 798 So. 2d 508, di d not di s cus s the s ubj ect m att er of t he
r eques t s f

ora dm i s s i on; thus , i ti s notc l earw hetherthe deemed a dm i s s i ons w ou l d have pr event ed a de ci s i on on the mer i t s . I ns t ead, i n af f i r m i ng the tr i al court ’ s deni al of t he d e fe n d a n ts’ m o tio n to w ith d ra w , th e C o u rt f o c u se d o n th e d e fe n d a n ts’ te n -m o n th d e lay in
re s p o n d in g to th e re q u e s ts a n d th a t th e d e fe n d a n ts w e re a n a tt o r n e y a n d a la w fi rm . I d. at 5 1 6 -17 . “T h is i s n o t an in stan ce w h ere an a tto rn e y ’s m ist ak e p rejud iced the d efe n se o f a
c lien t w h o k n e w n o th in g o f th e ru les o r re q u ire m e n ts a n d w o u ld su ffe r b e c a u se o f h is att orney’ s i nact i on . T he cl i entw as an att orney and hi s ent i r e f i r m . ” I d. at517. I n t he p re se n t ca se , the p lain tiffs re sp o n d e d in a sig n ifica n tly sh o rte r ti m e tha n ten m o n th s, a n d it i s notal l eged thatt he pl ai nt i f f s t hemsel ves have any l egal t r ai ni ng such thatthey w oul d have been a w ar e of

t he rul es of

ci vi l pr ocedur e. M oreove r , the pl ai nt i f f i n E ar w ood

tim e ly p u rsu e d h e r m o tio n to d e e m the req u e sts fo r ad m iss io n a d m itt e d ; sh e re c e iv e d a ru lin g w ith in

### 25

f ourm onths of

f i l i ng herm ot i on. D r . Sm i th and B M H - D w ai t ed yea r s bef or e s eeki ng a rul i ng on D r . Sm i th’ s m ot i on. ¶3 5. Fi nal l y, I no t e tha t “ the pu rpo s e of r e qu e s t s f or a dmi s s i on s i s t o na rr ow a nd def i ne i s s ues f ort r i al . Pr oper l y us ed, r eques t s f oradmi s s i ons s er ve t he expe di entpurpos e of
e lim in a tin g th e n e c e s s ity o f p ro v in g e s s e n tia lly u n d is p u te d a n d p e r ip h e ra l is s u e s o f f a c t.” H a ley v. H

a rb in , 933 So. 2d 261, 262- 63 ( M i s s . 2005) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons and ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . M or eover , “[ d] i s covery m ethods , i ncl udi ng butnotl i m i t ed t o, i nt err ogat or i es and
re q u e sts fo r ad m iss io n s, ar e n o t t o b e u se d as a ru se o r stra tag e m to o b fu sc a te th e tru th o r to tr i ck an oppos i ng pa r ty i nt o a dm i t t i ng a di s put ed f act . ” I d. at 26 2 (i n terna l ci tat ion s o m itted). A l l ow i ng the dee m ed admi s s i ons t o s t and cl ear l y f or ecl os es a dec i s i on on the mer i t s and
s ubvert s the purpos e of the rul e. ¶36. T he pl ai n l anguage of R ul e 36( b) of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e pr ovi des thata tr i al courtm ay perm i tw i thdraw al oramendm entof admi s s i ons w her e t o gr antt he
m ot i on w oul d s ubs erve the pr es ent at i on of the mer i t s of

the ca s e, and the party w ho obt ai ned th e a d m iss io n s c a n n o t sh o w th a t w ith d ra w a l w o u ld p re ju d ice h is o r h e r a b ili ty to p re se n t h is
orherpos i t i on on t he mer i t s . O nce a party has pr oper l y ent er ed a mot i on t o w i thdr aw or amend adm i s s i ons , the tr i al c our ts houl d e val uat e thatmot i on acc or di ng t o the t erm s of the tw o-prong ed tes tou t l i ned i n R ule 36(b). In the presentcase, the t estw as i gn ored. B ecause b o th p ro n g s w e ig h h e a v ily in fa v o r o f th e p lain tiffs, a n d b e c a u se th e d e fe n d a n ts c lea rly d id
n o t rely o n these deem ed ad m i ssi on s w hil e eng aging i n y ears of l i t i gati on , the tr i al cou rt
a b u se d its d is c re tio n in d e n y in g th e p lain tiffs’ m o tio n to w ith d ra w . A c c o rd in g ly , I w o u ld
rever se sum m ary j ud gm ent and all ow the case to proceed to an ad j ud i cat i on on the m eri t s.