In the recent case of Monolith Companies LLC v Hunter Douglas Hospitality Inc., September 24, 2015, A15A1096, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Hunter Douglas based on Monolith’s failure to respond to requests for admission (RFAs) which were sent after the discovery deadline.
When Monolith failed to respond to Hunter Douglas’ RFAs, including a request that Monolith admit that it was indebted to Hunter Douglas in the sum $23,860, Hunter Douglas filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion and Monolith appealed, arguing that because the RFAs were sent after the close of discovery it was not required to respond.
The Court explained that the “admission that arises from a failure to respond to a request for admission in the required timeframe arises by operation of law, without the necessity for court action.” Id. In grating summary judgment, “the trial court simply gave effect to the admission that resulted from Monolith’s failure to object or respond to the request for admission.” Id.
The Court had little sympathy for Monolith’s position: