United States District Court, D. Nebraska
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
LYLE E. STROM, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the motion of the defendant to compel discovery (Filing No. 196). The defendant has also filed an accompanying brief (Filing No. 197) and index of evidence (Filing No. 198). The plaintiff filed a reply brief (Filing No. 205) with an index of evidence (Filing No. 206) in opposition of the motion. The defendant has filed its reply brief (Filing No. 210). The Court will grant the motion in part and deny it in part.
The plaintiff, Prism Technologies, L.L.C. ("Prism"), has brought a patent infringement action against the defendant, AT&T Mobility, L.L.C. ("AT&T"). Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, AT&T moves to compel Prism to admit the authenticity of certain documents and to describe in detail the secondary indicia of non-obviousness in Interrogatory number 4. Filing No. 196, at 2.
Requests for admission may be served under Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a) on matters related to, among other things, the genuineness of any described documents. The purpose of Rule 36(a) is to expedite trial by eliminating the necessity of proving undisputed issues, thus narrowing the range of issues for trial. See Qausis v. Schwan Food Co., 596 F.3d 947, 959 (8th Cir. 2010). It has long been held that a party has no right to categorically deny an allegation that it knows or believes to be true, for the sole purpose of forcing its adversary to bear the burden and cost of its proof. United States v. Long, 10 F.R.D. 443 (D. Neb. 1950). Moreover, when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify that part admitted and qualify or deny the rest. Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a)(4). A requesting party may move to determine the sufficiency of an answer or objection to any request for admission, and on finding that an answer does not comply with the rules, the Court may order either that the matter is admitted or that an amended answer be served. See Praetorian Insurance Co. v. Site Inspection, LLC, 604 F.3d 509 (8th Cir. 2010); Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a)(6).
III. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS.
In its Requests for Admissions ("RFAs"), AT&T asked the following four statements be admitted or denied:
[RFA No. 236]: The documents produced by Prism are authentic under Federal Rule of Evidence 901;
[RFA No. 238]: The documents produced by Prism are business records kept in the regular and ordinary course of Prism's business;
[RFA No. 239]: The documents produced by Prism are business records created by a Prism employee or employees working within the scope of his or her employment when making the writing; and,
[RFA No. 240]: The documents produced by Prism are true and correct copies of what they purport to be.
Filing 198-2, at 204-05. In addition, AT&T objects to Prism's categorical denial of prior art documents which Prism submitted to the patent office. Filing No. 197, at 3. Specifically, Prism denied knowledge of when Bates numbers JDG_PRISM_INV_0009666-JDG_PRISM_INV_0009807 ("JDG Documents") were published and Prism did not expressly admit or deny the truth of information disclosures Prism submitted to the United ...