The Defendant initially objected to the Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions as being too many in number given that the Plaintiff had served 200 such requests. The court rejected this argument as there is no legal authority to support this argument.
However, the court did strike some duplicative Requests for Admissions.
The court also accepted the defense argument that some of the other Requests for Admissions were objectionable in that they called for legal conclusions in violation of Pennsylvania law, including the case of Brindley v. Woodland Village Restaurant, Inc., 652 A.2d 865, 871 (Pa. Super. 1995).
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (July 7, 2020).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.