Various Defendants applied to have the Action struck for long delay. The Plaintiffs argued that a Notice to Admit and the Reply, from one of the Defendants, advanced the Action. Additionally, the Plaintiffs argued that the Notice to Admit and the Reply were proceedings which warranted the Action continuing.

The Reply was a complete denial of the facts sought to be admitted, and the Court held that a denial of all the admissions sought under a Notice to Admit does not significantly advance an Action. The Notice to Admit and Reply were both served before the drop dead date, and thus were not proceedings taken since the delay. The Application to strike was granted.