Opinion ID: 1256030
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Evidence Offered by Meyer to Oppose Summary Judgment

Text: Meyer argues that the following responses to plaintiffs' interrogatories and requests for admission raise a genuine issue of fact in this case. First, in response to an interrogatory requesting the specific facts upon which Meyer intended to base his denial of paternity, Meyer replied that M.T. had assured him that she was taking birth control pills during the periods that they engaged in sexual relations. Second, Meyer stated that he believed that he had last had sexual intercourse with M.T. in 1991, more than nine months before N.G.T.'s December 26, 1992 birth. Even this broad denial was not unequivocal. Indeed, Meyer prefaced his interrogatory responses by stating that [d]ue to the passage of time, I am unable to recall each specific occasion when I have had contact with [M.T.]. For the same reasons, I am unable to recall the precise dates, times of day, locations and circumstances surrounding each such contact that I have had with her. It was only under these limitations that Meyer stated his inconclusive denial. This is the full extent of Meyer's proffered evidence opposing summary judgment. Yet Meyer has not challenged CSED's strong evidence supporting a paternity finding. He has not disputed M.T.'s hotel and telephone receipts that indicate that he had contact with M.T. at the time of conception. Nor has he challenged the specific date of conception that M.T. offered. Meyer has offered no evidence that M.T. had other sexual partners to controvert M.T.'s statement that Meyer was her sole sexual partner during the time of conception. The evidence offered by Meyer is thus insufficient to raise a genuine issue of fact.