Background
Jeremy Daggett appealed from a judgment awarding Taylor Richards primary residential responsibility, establishing parenting time, and ordering him to pay child support. He challenged those determinations and the district court’s denial of his expedited motion to withdraw deemed admissions and vacate an order in limine restricting his evidence.
Richards served requests for admission on December 11, 2024. Daggett responded after the 30-day deadline, on February 21, 2025, and Richards moved to have the requests deemed admitted and to limit Daggett’s evidence based on his discovery responses. The district court granted that motion on April 29, 2025. Daggett waited until August 6, seven days before trial, to seek relief from the admissions and order in limine; the court denied his motion as untimely under its scheduling order and North Dakota Court Rule 3.2, finding no exceptional circumstances.
The Court’s Holding
The North Dakota Supreme Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Daggett’s motion as untimely. Daggett neither sought modification of the scheduling order nor adequately explained why he waited more than three months after the April 29 order—and until one week before trial—to move to withdraw the admissions and vacate the evidentiary restriction.
The court also rejected Daggett’s challenges to primary residential responsibility, parenting time, and child support. Arguments dependent on the discovery rulings failed with his challenge to those rulings, while the district court’s findings on the independently challenged issues were supported by the evidence and met the required standard of proof, and its legal conclusions were correct. The Supreme Court summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).
Key Takeaways
- Unanswered requests for admission are conclusively established unless the district court permits their withdrawal or amendment.
- The district court acted within its discretion by enforcing its scheduling order when Daggett waited until seven days before trial to seek relief and provided no adequate explanation for the delay.
- The record supported the rulings on primary residential responsibility, parenting time, and child support, so the Supreme Court summarily affirmed the judgment.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that parties must respond timely to requests for admission and promptly seek relief from discovery and evidentiary orders. A motion may be considered yet denied as untimely when the movant delays without adequate explanation and does not seek modification of the governing schedule.
It also illustrates the North Dakota Supreme Court’s use of summary affirmance when challenged factual findings are supported by the evidence and the district court’s legal conclusions are correct.