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.

Gurshin v. Bank of America N.A.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

January 5, 2017

ALEXIS GURSHIN, Plaintiff,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; et. al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          CAM FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Before 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).

         I. Discussion

         1. Bank of America's Motion to Deem Requests Admitted (ECF No. 106)

         "A 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." Id.

         "[W]hen 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.

         Bank of 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 proper.

         Requests 84, 85, 87, and 90-127 fall into the second category. The requests 90- 127 follow an identical pattern.[1] 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.

         Gurshin 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.

         With 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 properly denied.

         Gurshin's 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 admitted").

         2. Gurshin's Motion to Deem Requests Admitted (ECF No. 117)

         "The 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).

         Gurshin served a total of 78 requests for admission on Bank of America. (ECF No. 117) Gurshin moves to deem admitted 52 of her ...


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.