deciding that prejudice would result if the withdrawal was allowed in light of the following facts: (1) the party relying on the admission operated under the assumption that the admitted matter was not an issue and conducted no discovery on it, and (2) there would need to be "a substantial amount of new discovery" that would "caus[e] additional delays in an already very long process"
How later courts described this case
- deciding that prejudice would result if the withdrawal was allowed in light of the following facts: (1) the party relying on the admission operated under the assumption that the admitted matter was not an issue and conducted no discovery on it, and (2) there would need to be "a substantial amount of new discovery" that would "caus[e] additional delays in an already very long process"
- rejecting party's claim that it could effectively ignore a scheduling order by expressly reserving in its pretrial report the right to name additional witnesses, because such a reservation of rights "entirely defeats the very purpose of the witness list requirement"
- only ordering disclosure of settlement agreement because the release language was unclear
- declining to address undeveloped arguments
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FINE, J.
¶ 291. (concurring in part; dissenting in part). I join in the Majority opinion except paragraphs 262-278.
¶ 292. The trial court did not use the amount actually paid by Milwaukee County in determining "reasonableness"; it used it as the measure of recovery even though the parties agreed that the higher, billed, figure was "reasonable»" I also disagree with the Majority's decision to apply Wis. Stat. § 893.55 (7) to Beauchaine even though she is not under Wis. Stat. ch. 655. Accordingly, I would reverse that part of the judgment that reduced the Hegartys' medical-expense recovery.