Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Lumpkin v. Meskill

United States District Court for the District of Connecticut · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureRequests for AdmissionRule 36DiscoveryFed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)reasonable inquiryrequests for admissionopinions of fact

Facts

The racial balance of the Hartford school system from about 1950 forward was relevant to the case, but before 1964 the system did not keep statistics on racial composition. To avoid reviewing all 321,000 student files from the period, plaintiffs used a random sampling technique designed by Dr. Kenneth Paul Hadden and examined about 11,000 files. Plaintiffs served Rule 36 requests asking the state defendant to admit the reliability of statistical sampling for this purpose, the validity of Hadden's methodology, and the accuracy of the resulting table. The state defendant refused to admit or deny accuracy, asserting that Rule 36(a) required responses only to "verifiable facts" and raising concerns about how the study had been conducted.

Issue

Whether amended Rule 36(a) permits requests for admission concerning the validity of statistical sampling methods and the accuracy of results derived from such methods, and whether the state defendant must make reasonable inquiry before refusing to admit or deny those matters. Also at issue was whether the defendant's existing response was sufficient.

Rule

Rule 36(a), as amended, allows requests for admission regarding any matter within the scope of Rule 26(b) that relates to statements or opinions of fact or to the application of law to fact; it is not limited to strictly "verifiable facts." A responding party may not refuse to answer on the ground that the request calls for an opinion of fact and must make reasonable inquiry to obtain knowledge and information readily obtainable to admit or deny the request.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a housing discrimination suit in Detroit, Nina Alvarez compiled a statistical estimate of tenant turnover by reviewing a random sample of archived lease files because the landlord kept no complete yearly summaries. She served requests for admission on Lakeshore Terrace Properties asking it to admit that random sampling is a reliable way to approximate turnover rates in these circumstances. The company objected that the request improperly sought an opinion rather than a fact.

How should the court most likely rule on the objection?

Explanation. The majority opinion explains that amended Rule 36(a) is not confined to 'verifiable facts.' It expressly allows requests concerning statements or opinions of fact and the application of law to fact, so a party cannot refuse to respond merely by labeling the request as opinion. A request asking whether sampling is a reliable means of approximation in the circumstances is therefore proper if within the scope of discovery.