## Facts

- Asea, Inc., a distributor of Swedish-manufactured electrical transformers, sold a large transformer to the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power.
- The transformer was shipped by sea to Los Angeles and then transported by rail to North Hollywood under the custody of Southern Pacific Transportation Company and Harbor Belt Line.
- The transformer arrived shifted on the railcar and was found to have suffered an impact and internal damage while in the railroads’ custody.
- Asea sued in federal court under diversity jurisdiction, alleging negligence, breach of implied warranty, and liability under California Civil Code § 2194 governing inland carriers.
- During extended discovery, Asea served Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a) requests for admission aimed at when and how the transformer was damaged.
- The railroads responded to multiple requests with formulaic statements that, after “reasonable inquiry,” they could neither admit nor deny, and responded to related interrogatories as “not applicable.”
- The district court found the railroads’ explanations inadequate, ordered the disputed matters deemed admitted, entered judgment for Asea, and denied the railroads’ motion for a new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether a district court may deem matters admitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 when a party claims it cannot admit or deny after “reasonable inquiry,” but the information is readily available or obtainable.
2. Whether, given the use and effect of the admissions, the judgment should be affirmed in full or partially vacated and remanded for reconsideration of affected issues.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit held that Rule 36 requires a responding party either to admit, deny, or explain in detail why it cannot truthfully admit or deny after a reasonable inquiry into information known or readily obtainable.
- The court affirmed the district court’s authority to deem matters admitted where responses were evasive or nonresponsive and the information was reasonably accessible.
- The court affirmed in part but vacated and remanded in part, concluding that aspects of the judgment required further consideration in light of how the deemed admissions and other evidence bore on the outcome.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 36(a) demands more than conclusory non-admissions; the responding party must conduct a reasonable inquiry and provide a detailed explanation if it cannot admit or deny.
- Information held by a party’s employees, files, or operational records may be treated as “readily obtainable” for purposes of the reasonable-inquiry obligation.
- A district court has broad discretion to enforce Rule 36 and may deem matters admitted when a party fails to comply with the rule’s response requirements.
- Deeming matters admitted is a permissible remedy for strategic or negligent noncompliance, but a genuine good-faith inability to obtain information after reasonable efforts can justify a non-admission.
- Because Rule 36(b) admissions are binding, courts must consider the downstream effect of admissions when determining whether resulting findings on liability or damages warrant reconsideration.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit confirmed that evasive Rule 36 responses—especially where the facts are reasonably obtainable—permit a court to deem matters admitted, while also requiring careful review of how such admissions affect the resulting judgment, leading to partial vacatur and remand.


Asea, Inc. v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242 (9th Cir. 1981)