Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Foretich v. Chung
Citations: 151 F.R.D. 3; 21 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2062; 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12841; 1993 WL 369294Docket: Civ. A. No. 91-0123 (HHG)
Court: District Court, District of Columbia; July 29, 1993; Federal District Court
Dr. Eric Foretich is suing Connie Chung, Peter Michaelis, and CBS Inc. for defamation related to CBS broadcasts about his custody battle with his former wife, Dr. Elizabeth Morgan, which has received significant media attention. The case arose from allegations of sexual abuse made by Dr. Morgan and their daughter, Hilary, which Dr. Foretich denies. Notably, Dr. Morgan served 25 months in prison for refusing to disclose Hilary's whereabouts, leading to international legal proceedings in New Zealand. The defendants have filed a motion concerning the sufficiency of Foretich's response to a request for admission, specifically whether he is considered a public figure in this context. Foretich has denied being a public figure in his responses. The defendants argue that the court should compel Foretich to admit this status or have it deemed admitted due to the alleged inadequacy of his denial. However, the court denies the defendants' motion, clarifying that Rule 36(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not permit the court to determine the accuracy of a party's denial at this stage, nor does it authorize the court to compel an admission based on an unsupported denial. The defendants also sought reimbursement for costs related to this motion, which was not granted. Rule 36 is intended to clarify and limit the issues in contention between parties. A party receiving a request for admission can respond by admitting, denying, objecting, moving for a protective order, remaining silent, or providing reasons for non-response. Failure to respond results in the matter being treated as admitted. In this case, the plaintiff denied the defendants' claim that he is a public figure, which is permissible under Rule 36. The defendants cannot challenge this denial at this stage, as the issue remains disputed. The defendants mistakenly equate the sufficiency of a response with its truthfulness; a response is deemed insufficient if it lacks specificity or detail. In such cases, the court may treat the matter as admitted or require an amended response. The advisory committee notes emphasize that motions to challenge sufficiency aim to clarify ambiguities and ensure awareness of admitted issues as litigation progresses. Rule 37(c) allows for potential recovery of costs by the defendants if the plaintiff's denial necessitates proving the public figure status at trial, but does not permit litigating a denied admission request at this stage. Addressing the public figure question is more appropriately suited for a motion for summary judgment. Consequently, the court denied the defendants’ motion regarding the sufficiency of the admission response and scheduled a status conference for September 15, 1993. The court's denial does not indicate a position on the public figure status of Dr. Foretich or suggest that the defendants are attempting to delay proceedings.