Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Choquette v. Warner

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma

June 21, 2017

ETIENNE L CHOQUETTE, Plaintiff,
v.
BERNARD E WARNER, Defendant.

          ORDER

          J. Richard Creatura United States Magistrate Judge.

         Before the Court is Defendants' Motion Regarding Sufficiency of Answers and Motion for Protective Order. Dkt. 76. Defendants request an order deeming defendants' Requests for Admission (“RFA”) Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 13, 14, 15, 19, and 20 admitted by plaintiff. Id. Defendants also seek a protective order wherein defendants request an order limiting discovery. Id. Plaintiff responded to the motion. Dkt. 78. Defendants filed a reply. Dkt. 79.

         In this case, the parties dispute the proportionality and relevancy of their propounded discovery requests. The Court finds that defendants' motion for sufficiency regarding defendants' RFA Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 13, 14, 15, 19, and 20 is granted in part as the RFAs will narrow the scope of issues in dispute and avoid the need for unnecessary litigation. At this time, the Court declines to deem the matters admitted. With respect to the motion for protective order, defendants' motion for protective order is denied in part, and granted in part.

         BACKGROUND

         In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendants, medical providers with the Department of Corrections, violated his Eighth Amendment rights to adequate medical treatment when they stopped his Gabapentin treatment, a nerve pain medication for multiple sclerosis. Dkt. 61. Plaintiff alleges that defendants relied on inferior medical opinions and against the recommendations of plaintiff's treating neurologist. Id. Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief. Id.

         The parties met on March 7, 2017 to agree on a discovery plan. Dkt. 74. On April 13, 2017, the parties had a Rule 26(c)(1) discovery conference and were able to make progress on several issues, but were unable to reach an agreement on the issues contained in defendants' motion. Dkt. 78 at ¶ 7.

         DISCUSSION

         1. Motion regarding Sufficiency of Answers to Defendants' Requests for Admission Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 13, 14, 15, 19 and 20

          “A party may serve on any other party a written request to admit, for purposes of the pending action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to: (A) facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either; and (B) the genuineness of any described documents.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a) (1). Requests for admission are not intended to be used to obtain discovery, but to narrow the issues for trial. Safeco of America v. Rawstron, 181 F.R.D. 441, 443 (C.D. Cal. 1998). See also Asea, Inc. v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir.1981) (“The purpose of Rule 36(a) is to expedite trial by establishing certain material facts as true and thus narrowing the range of issues for trial.”); Advisory Committee Note to 1970 Amendment to Fed.R.Civ.P. 36, 48 F.R.D. 531-532 (1970) (“Rule 36 serves two vital purposes, both of which are designed to reduce trial time. Admissions are sought, first to facilitate proof with respect to issues that cannot be eliminated from the case, and secondly, to narrow the issues by eliminating those that can be.”).

         If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest. The answering party may assert lack of knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a)(4).

         “The grounds for objecting to a request must be stated, ” Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a)(5), and with other forms of discovery, it is well established that boilerplate objections do not suffice, e.g., Thompson v. Yates, No. 1:06-cv-00763-RCC, 2011 WL 5975469, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Nov.29, 2011). Rather, a party resisting discovery must make some showing as to how each discovery request is not relevant and/or is overly broad or unduly burdensome. See id.

         Finally, “[t]he requesting party may move to determine the sufficiency of an answer or objection, ” Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a)(6). “Unless the court finds an objection justified, it must order that an answer be served. On finding that an answer does not comply with this rule, the court may order either that the matter is admitted or that an amended answer must be served.” Id.

         Among the requests for admission propounded to plaintiff were the following related to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.