Tyler v. Smith et al

Filing 83

ORDER denying 71 Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Second Set of Request for Admissions. Defendant shall have 14 days from the date of this ruling torespond to the Plaintiffs Second Request for Admissions. Failureto do so will result in the requests being deemed admitted. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 06/05/2013. (SMG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JAMES TYLER (#372199)
VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION

JIMMY SMITH, ET AL

NUMBER 12-222-SDD-SCR

RULING ON MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S SECOND
SET OF REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
Before

the

court

is

the

defendant’s

Motion

Plaintiff’s Second Set of Request for Admissions.

to

Strike

Record document

number 71.
On March 8, 2013, the plaintiff propounded Plaintiff’s Second
Request for Admissions.1

Defendant moved to strike the requests on

grounds that the discovery is untimely, irrelevant, immaterial and
not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
regarding the remaining issue in the case.
Defendant

argued

that

the

requests

propounded after discovery was closed.

for

admissions

were

Defendant argued that in

its June 13, 2012 order2 extending the time to file cross motions
for summary judgment, the court also tacitly closed discovery
beyond the date to file cross motions for summary judgment.
Contrary to the defendant’s assertion, the order issued on

1

Record document number 63.

2

Record document number 14.

June 13, 2012, did not close discovery or restrict discovery after
a certain date.

Moreover, it is apparent that the purpose of the

requested admissions is not discovery.
establishing

the

authenticity

facilitating

the

presentation

determining

what

factual

of
of

issues

Rather they are focused on

various
evidence

are

documents,
at

actually

the

thereby

trial,

disputed,

and

again

facilitating the presentation of evidence at the trial.
Consequently, insofar as the defendant generally argued that
the admissions are irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to
lead

to

the

discovery

of

admissible

evidence

regarding

the

plaintiff’s excessive use of force claim, the argument is without
merit.
Accordingly, the defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s
Second Set of Request for Admissions is denied.
Defendant shall have 14 days from the date of this ruling to
respond to the Plaintiff’s Second Request for Admissions.

Failure

to do so will result in the requests being deemed admitted.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, June 5, 2013.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE