time thereafter. Indeed, plaintiff failed to initiate efforts with defendant to close at any time before June 6, 2006— the day after defendant notified plaintiff of its intention to terminate the original agreement. Although plaintiff now cryptically disputes this fact, it was deemed admitted by the Superior Court as a result of plaintiffs failure to timely respond to defendant’s request for admissions. See 'Rule 36(a) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure (providing a “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”); Travelers Insurance Co. v. Builders Resource Corp., 785 A.2d 568, 569 (R.I.2001) (mem.) (<HOLDING>). Further, plaintiff failed to provide
holding that facts deemed admitted as to one defendant because of his failure to respond to the plaintiffs request for admissions are not binding on a codefendant holding that failure to file timely responses to a request for admissions renders them admitted holding that trial court properly deemed defendants responses to requests for admission admitted because defendants real purpose in refusing to answer the request for admissions was not to prevent being a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but to hinder the plaintiff in this common law damage suit from proving an essential element in his case holding that appellate counsels admitted failure to timely file the brief constituted good cause to grant motion for belated brief holding dismissal with prejudice is appropriate remedy for failure to timely file undertaking