OPINIONS
 
OF THE
 
TRIAL DIVISION
 
OF THE
 
HIGH COURT OF AMERICAN SAMOA
 
(2004)

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES IN SAMOA, INC.,
Plaintiff,
 
v.
 
AMERICAN SAMOA GOVERNMENT, PORT AUTHORITY,
Defendant.
 
High Court of American Samoa
Trial Division
 
CA No. 41-03
 
July 30, 2004

[1] The Court may allow a party to untimely respond to requests for admissions if there is no dispute that such admissions and responses serve the merits of the case, and the Court is not persuaded that the party opposing the filing will suffer any prejudice in its action or defense on the merits as a consequence of allowing the untimely submission. 
 
[2] Ordering a party to pay reasonable attorney's fees is an appropriate sanction the Court may impose upon the party whose delays pretrial discovery subsequently causes the other party to incur expenses that could have easily been avoided had the sanctioned party not caused such delay. 
 
Before KRUSE, Chief Justice, MAMEA, Associate Judge, and TAPOPO, Associate Judge 
 
Counsel: For Plaintiff, Charles V. Ala'ilima 
 For Defendant, Fiti A. Sunia, Attorney General, and Monica Abello, Assistant Attorney General 
 
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND AWARDING SANCTIONS
 
Plaintiff Construction Services in Samoa, Inc. ("CSS") moves for summary judgment pursuant to T.C.R.C.P. 56(c) on its claims against Defendant American Samoa Government ("ASG"). On July 23, 2004, hearing was held on this motion. For the reasons stated below, we deny CSS' motion for summary judgment. 
 
On March 23, 2004, CSS served several requests for admissions ("RFAs") on ASG in accordance with T.C.R.C.P. 36(a). According to T.C.R.C.P. 36(a), "[t]he matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after service of the request, the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a written answer or objection addressed to the matter." ASG failed to respond to CSS' requests until July 23, 2004, well after the 30-day deadline imposed by Rule 36. See T.C.R.C.P.36(a). CSS, in its motion for summary judgment, asks the Court to recognize ASG'‟s failure to timely respond to its requests and deem the requested matters admitted. 
 
[1] At the hearing on this matter, ASG admitted it failed to timely respond to CSS‟ RFAs and offered no excuse for its failure. According to Rule 36(b), "the court may permit withdrawal or amendment [of the admission] when the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved thereby and the party who obtained the admission fails to satisfy the court that withdrawal or amendment will prejudice him in maintaining his action or defense on the merits." ASG argues that the admissions go to factual issues that are central to the case and that allowing them to respond will serve the merits of the case. CSS does not dispute this contention. In addition, we are not persuaded that CSS will suffer any prejudice in "maintaining [its] action or defense on the merits" if we allow ASG's untimely response. T.C.R.C.P. 36(b). Accordingly, we will allow ASG's untimely filing to serve as its responses to CSS' RFAs. 

 [2] Because CSS brought its motion for summary judgment relying in large part on the facts in the RFAs being deemed admissions, we must deny the motion for summary judgment at this time. However, ASG must be held accountable for its conduct which caused CSS to incur time and expense that could have easily been avoided had ASG timely filed responses to CSS‟ RFAs. ASG shall pay CSS for the costs and reasonable attorney's fees associated with CSS‟ motion for summary judgment. See Hadley v. U.S., 45 F.3d 1345, 1350 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Nothing in this order prevents CSS from bringing any future motion for summary judgment. 
 
Order
 
1. CSS' motion for summary judgment is denied. 

2. CSS is awarded its costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred in the prosecution of its motion for summary judgment. Counsel shall submit an affidavit itemizing such costs and fees for the Court's approval as to reasonableness. 
 
It is so ordered. 
 
**********