United States District Court, D. Nevada
FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the court are the following motions:
1. Bank of America's motion to deem requests admitted
(ECF No. 106); Gurshin's response (ECF No. 116); and Bank
of America's reply (ECF No. 124).
2. Gurshin's motion to extend time (ECF No. 123)
3. Gurshin's motion to deem requests admitted (ECF No.
117); Bank of America's response (ECF No. 125); and
Gurshin's reply (ECF No. 126).
4. Gurshin's motion to compel additional deposition time
(ECF No. 120); Bank of America's response (ECF No. 127);
and Gurshin's reply (ECF No. 128).
Bank of America's Motion to Deem Requests Admitted
(ECF No. 106)
matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served,
the party to whom the request is directed serves on the
requesting party a written answer or objection."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a)(3). "If a matter is not admitted, the
answer must specifically or state in detail why the answering
party cannot truthfully admit or deny it." FED. R. Civ.
P. 36(a)(4). "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 reasonably
inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily
obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny."
good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny
only part of a matter, the answer must specify the part
admitted and qualify or deny the rest." Id.
American's requests for admissions may be separated into
two categories: 1) those related to factual disputes and 2)
those asking about the authenticity of documents. Requests
35, 43, 58, 63, 65, 67, 70, 75 and 76 fall under the first
category. Gurshin responded to each request with a
straightforward "Deny." She followed up each denial
with an explanation or qualification. Although Gurshin's
explanations are slightly confusing, they do not detract from
the clarity of Gurshin's denial. Gurhsin's responses
to requests 35, 43, 58, 63, 65, 67, 70, 75, and 76 are
84, 85, 87, and 90-127 fall into the second category. The
requests 90- 127 follow an identical pattern. Request 90 asks
if a letter with a particular BATES number "is a true
and correct copy of an authentic genuine business record of B
ANA and its third-party leave administrator, Aetna."
Request 91 asks if Gurshin had received the previously
mentioned letter within one week of the date indicated on the
letter. Requests 92-127 follow this pattern.
responded to request 90 with a "Deny." She then
provided a tangential statement about the progress of
discovery during this action. In response to request 91,
Gurshin stated she was "[u]nable to admit or deny at
this time, and am examining my own documents and will
supplement within three weeks." Gurshin's responses
to requests 90-127 follow this pattern.
regard to the requests to admit the genuineness documents,
Gurshin properly denied each request. Although she provided
additional statements that did not relate to the bank's
request, those statements did not undermine her denial.
Requests 84, 85, 87, 90, 92, 94, 96, 98, 100, 102, 104, 106,
108, 110, 112, 114, 116, 118, 120, 122, 124, and 126 were
responses to the remaining authentication requests are more
problematic. Gurshin's supplemental responses stated she
was "still unable to admit or deny" after reviewing
her records. (ECF 124-1) Gurshin did not explain the steps
she took in attempting to answer the request nor did she
explain why she lacked sufficient information to admit or
deny. FED. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). As Gurshin has not provided a
proper response or objection, requests 91, 93, 95, 97, 99,
101, 103, 105, 107, 109, 111, 113, 115, 117, 119, 121, 123,
125, and 127 are deemed admitted. FedR. Civ. P.
36(a)(6)("On a finding that an answer does not comply
with this rule, the court may order ... that the matter is
Gurshin's Motion to Deem Requests Admitted (ECF No.
grounds for objecting to a request must be stated. A party
must not object solely on the ground that the request
presents a genuine issue for trial." Fed.R.Civ.P.
36(a)(5). "[B]oilerplate objections are disfavored,
'especially when a party fails to submit any evidentiary
declarations supporting such declaration.'"
EnvTech, Inc. v. Suchard, No. 3:ll-cv-523-HDM-WGC,
2013 WL 4899085 at* 5 (D.Nev. Sept. 11, 2013)(internal
citations omitted). "[B]oilerplate objections such as
'overly burdensome and harassing' are improper."
A. Farber and Partners, Inc. v. Garber, 234 F.R.D.
186, 188 (CD. Cal. 2006).
served a total of 78 requests for admission on Bank of
America. (ECF No. 117) Gurshin moves to deem admitted 52 of