Fountain v. United States of America et al

Filing 64

ORDER granting Plaintiff's Motion for leave to serve additional requests for admission upon Defendant. The Court ORDERS Defendant to serve a response to the disputed requests for admission within 30 days (by 9/1/2016) of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 08/02/2016. (pts)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
MARIA FOUNTAIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_________

CV 114-127

ORDER
_________
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve additional requests for
admission upon Defendant in relation to her claim that Defendant wrongfully damaged her
recreational vehicle when towing it from Fort Gordon. (Doc. no. 62.) Defendant opposes
the extra twenty-four requests for admission on the basis that the requests are
disproportionate to the needs of the case because Plaintiff only claims $12,000 in damages.
(Doc. no. 63.)
Local Rule 36 provides that “[r]equests for admission shall not exceed 25 in number,
including all discrete subparts, absent leave of the Court or consent of the responding party.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1) further states “[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) . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) defines the scope of discovery as follows:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is
relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the
case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the

amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the
parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and
whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely
benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in
evidence to be discoverable.
Here, Defendant does not contest the relevance of the disputed request for admissions
and they appear to be directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claims that Defendant was negligent in
its treatment of her recreational vehicle. (Doc. no. 62, pp. 21-26.) Though the Court
acknowledges the low amount at stake in this dispute, the burden of responding to the
additional requests for admissions is low and may serve to narrow the issues for both parties
in further discovery efforts. In addition, Plaintiff is pro se with a current Texas address
which makes requests for admissions and interrogatories the most practical methods of
discovery for her claims. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion (doc. no. 62)
and ORDERS Defendant to serve a response to the disputed requests for admission within
thirty days of the date of this Order.
SO ORDERED this 2nd day of August, 2016, at Augusta, Georgia.

2