Andrews v. City of Omaha Police Department et al

Filing 39

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Defendants' 30 MOTION to Compel is granted. Plaintiff shall have until November 17, 2015, to answer defendants interrogatories and requests for admissions. In the event that plaintiff fails to answer the requests f or admission by November 17, 2015, the requests for admissions will be deemed admitted. In the event plaintiff fails to answer defendants' interrogatories by November 17, 2015, plaintiff's claims against defendants may be subject to dismissal without prejudice and without notice. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (Copy e-mailed to pro se party)(MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
MICHAEL ANDREWS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
LUCIANO RIZZO and MICHAEL
)
BELCASTRO,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)

8:14CV285

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the motion of
defendants, Luciano Rizzo and Michael Belcastro (collectively
“defendants”) to compel answers to requests for admissions and
interrogatories (Filing No. 30).

The defendants filed the

present motion on October 21, 2015, along with an accompanying
brief.

See Filing No. 31.

On October 23, 2015, plaintiff,

Michael Andrews (“plaintiff” or “Andrews”), filed amended answers
to interrogatories and an amended response to requests for
admissions.

See Filing No. 33 and Filing No. 34.

On October 30, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to deny
defendants’ motion to compel (Filing No. 35) and defendants filed
their reply brief (Filing No. 36).

The Court will construe

plaintiff’s motion to deny defendants’ motion to compel as a
brief in opposition of defendants’ motion.
been fully briefed by the parties.

Thus, the matter has

After review of the motion,

the parties’ briefs, and applicable law, the Court finds as
follows.
BACKGROUND
On August 21, 2015, defendants served upon plaintiff
requests for admissions and interrogatories.

See Filing No. 23.

On September 18, 2015, plaintiff responded to each of defendants’
requests for admissions and each interrogatory by “object[ing] to
the question [because] [t]he United States District court [sic]
for the District of Nebraska has not set a schedule for this
case.”

(Filing No. 24).

In fact, the Court issued a

progression order on July 22, 2015.

See Filing No. 21.

After

becoming aware of this information, plaintiff then amended his
answers but continued to object to the requests for admissions
and interrogatories by stating, “Reason:
privacy.”

Victim right to

(Filing No. 33 and Filing No. 34).

Defendants ask the

Court to overrule plaintiff’s
objections . . . [and] pray for an
Order from the Court compelling Mr.
Andrews to answer the Requests for
Admissions and Interrogatories
served upon him . . . and deeming
the Requests for Admissions
admitted if the [p]laintiff fails
to answer . . . after the
expiration of any additional time
to respond the Court may be
inclined to give the [p]laintiff.

-2-

(Filing No. 30 at 1).

Plaintiff responds by arguing that he “in

good faith filed and served amended answers to Interrogatories
and Admissions in a timely manner and within the legal timeframe
[sic] of 20 days.”

(Filing No. 35 at 2).

Plaintiff further

argues the defendants’ motion “raises no substantial issue of
law.”

(Id.)

LAW
Discovery is governed by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 governs

interrogatories and provides “[t]he grounds for objection to an
interrogatory must be stated with specificity.

Any ground not

stated in a timely objection is waived unless the court, for
good cause, excuses the failure.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 governs requests for
admissions and provides “[a] party may serve on any other party
a written request to admit, for the purposes of the pending
action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule
26(b)(1) . . . .”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1).

Thus, Rule 26(b)

provides certain limitations on obtaining evidence through the
discovery process.
is not discoverable.

Information that is privileged or irrelevant
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); see also

Edgar v. Finley, 312 F.2d 533, 535 (8th Cir. 1963).

-3-

“The requesting party may move to determine the
sufficiency of an answer or objection.

Unless the court finds

an objection justified, it must order that an answer be served.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(6).

“The court may order either that the

matter is admitted or that an amended answer be served.”

Id.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s objections fail to meet the requirements
under the Federal Rules.

The Court will therefore grant

defendants’ motion to compel.

Plaintiff shall have until

November 17, 2015, to answer defendants’ interrogatories and
requests for admissions.

In the event that plaintiff fails to

answer by the deadline set forth in this order, the requests for
admissions will be deemed admitted.

In the event plaintiff

fails to answer defendants’ interrogatories by the deadline set
forth in this order, plaintiffs claims against defendants may be
subject to dismissal without prejudice and without notice.
IT IS ORDERED:
1) Defendants’ motion to compel is granted.
2) Plaintiff shall have until November 17, 2015, to
answer defendants’ interrogatories and requests for admissions.
In the event that plaintiff fails to answer the requests for
admission by November 17, 2015, the requests for admissions will
be deemed admitted.

In the event plaintiff fails to answer
-4-

defendants’ interrogatories by November 17, 2015, plaintiff’s
claims against defendants may be subject to dismissal without
prejudice and without notice.
DATED this 3rd day of November, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
____________________________
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court

-5-