Heritage brought a motion seeking an order to strike the Leroux's response to its request for admissions and to compel more adequate responses under Rule 51.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Heritage alleged that the Leroux's refusals to admit 39 statements did not comply with Rule 51.03(3)(b) by failing to provide proper reasons.
The Leroux contended their responses were compliant, providing specific reasons for each refusal.
The court found that the Leroux's responses were neutral and specific, not a "blanket denial," and that the jurisprudence cited by Heritage was distinguishable.
The court concluded that the relevance and sufficiency of the responses, where Rule 51 was respected, were matters for the application or trial judge to determine on the merits, not for an interlocutory motion.
The motion was dismissed.
