Charlotte B Milliner et al v. Mutual Securities, Inc.

Filing 77

ORDER Re: Defendant's Responses to Requests for Admissions 61 . Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 2/6/17. Admissions due by 2/17/17. (tehlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2017).

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

CHARLOTTE B. MILLINER, et al.,

5

Plaintiffs,

6
7

v.
MUTUAL SECURITIES, INC.,

Case No. 15-cv-03354-TEH
ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSIONS

Defendant.

8
9
10

Presently before the court is Plaintiffs’ motion regarding Defendant’s Responses to

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Requests for Admissions. ECF No. 61 (“Mot.”). Defendant timely opposed the motion,

12

ECF No. 66 (“Opp’n.”), and Plaintiffs timely replied, ECF No. 70 (“Reply”). Pursuant to

13

Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds the motion suitable for determination without oral

14

argument. After carefully considering the parties' written arguments, Plaintiff's motion is

15

DENIED.

16

DISCUSSION

17

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 36 Plaintiffs served Defendant with two sets of Requests

18

for Admissions asking MSI to admit or deny whether certain specified stocks purchased

19

into Plaintiffs’ accounts were OTC Equity Stocks (“OTCs”). Mot. at 2:15–18. Defendant

20

objected to answering these requests stating that answering them “would require MSI to

21

undertake a lengthy and nuanced analysis regarding how 80 different stocks relate to two

22

different statutes,” that the requests are “unduly burdensome,” and that the requests ask for

23

a legal conclusion. Opp’n at 1:11–22.

24

However, Defendant’s arguments are completely undercut by Defendant’s Chief

25

Compliance Officer deposition testimony, presented in Plaintiffs’ Reply, which confirms

26

that MSI has already determined which securities were OTCs at the time they were

27

purchased into the Plaintiffs’ accounts. Reply at 1:10–3:6; ECF No. 71-1, at 5-6. In light

28

of this testimony, Defendant’s arguments relating to the difficulty involved in answering

1

Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admissions are refuted. Additionally, Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1)(A)

2

authorizes a party to serve written requests to the opposing party seeking admissions of

3

“facts, the application of law to facts, or opinions about either.” Thus, Defendant cannot

4

oppose Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admissions merely because Plaintiffs ask Defendant to

5

apply law to facts.
While the Court certainly has discretion to deem the answers to Plaintiffs’ Requests

7

for Admissions to be admitted due to Defendant failing to comply with the requirements of

8

Rule 36(a), see Asea, Inc. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 1274 (9th Cir.

9

1981), the Court shall grant the Defendant leave to file additional responses to Plaintiffs’

10

Requests for Admissions. Defendant is ordered to provide such responses to Plaintiffs by

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

February 17, 2017. Defendant is forewarned that any further failures to engage in good-

12

faith discovery will not be taken lightly by the Court.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17

Dated: 2/6/17

_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2