Chandler v. Goodridge

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that plaintiffs request that defendant admit to the validity of plaintiffs claims and concede the defendant’s defenses, matters the plaintiff “knew to be in dispute,” were improper
• concluding that pro se nonmovant had not shown callous disregard of rules when her discovery responses were only one day late and she had sent a letter to movant’s counsel notifying him when she would provide 19 her responses
• stating that Wheeler “required a showing of ‘flagrant bad faith or callous disregard for the rules’ to substantiate a summary judgment based solely on deemed admissions.”
• stating that using merits-preclusive deemed admissions as basis for summary judgment “incorporates the requirement [of showing flagrant bad faith or callous disregard] as an element of the movant’s summary judgment burden”
• characterizing requests asking defendant to “essentially . . . admit the validity of [plaintiff’s] claims and concede her defenses— matters [plaintiff] knew to be in dispute”
• explaining that requests may be used to elicit statements of opinion or of fact or of the application of law to fact, but should not be used to require an opposing party to admit claims and concede defenses that a party knows are being disputed

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).