VFS Financing, Inc. v. Gonfiantini et al

Filing 84

ORDER - Defendant SHALL PROVIDE a Supplemental Response to RFA No. 29 on or before Monday, November 25, 2013 at Noon PST. Signed by Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke on 11/22/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

VFS FINANCING, INC.,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
STACEY L. GONFIANTINI, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )
PRESENT:

3:13-cv-00109-RCJ-VPC

MINUTES OF THE COURT

November 22, 2013

THE HONORABLE VALERIE P. COOKE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEPUTY CLERK:

LISA MANN

REPORTER: NONE APPEARING

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
Before the court is a discovery dispute regarding Request for Admission (“RFA”) No. 29
propounded to defendant Stacey Gonfiantini “defendant.” Subsequent to the hearing, the court
reviewed relevant case law, including the cases cited by the parties, as well as the Advisory
Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 36 for the 1970 Amendment of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
The court finds that defendant’s objections to RFA No. 29 are improper. Therefore, the
court directs defendant to either admit or deny RFA No. 29. See, e.g., Marchand v. Mercy
Medical Center, 22 F.3d 933, 937-938 (9th Cir. 1994); Playboy Enterprises v. Welles, 60
F.Supp.2d 1050, 1057 (S.D. Cal. 1999); Long v. Howard University, 561 F.Supp.2d 85, 94
(D.D.C. 2008); House v Giant of Maryland LLC, 232 F.R.D. 257, 262 (E.D. Va. 2005).

Accordingly, defendant SHALL PROVIDE a Supplemental Response to RFA No. 29 on
or before Monday, November 25, 2013 at Noon, P.S.T.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By:

/s/
Deputy Clerk