Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) set forth in the request that relate to statements or opinions of fact or of the application of law to fact____” The purpose of Rule 36 requests for admissions “is to allow for the narrowing of issues, to permit facilitation in presenting cases to the factfin-der and, at a minimum, to provide notification as to those facts, or opinions, that remain in dispute.” Lakehead Pipe Line Co. v. American Home Assurance Co., 177 F.R.D. 454, 457-58 (D.Minn.1997). As such, requests for admissions are similar to stipulations in the pretrial order. See Revlon Consumer Prods. Corp. v. Estee Lauder Co., No. 00CIV.5960(RMB), 2001 WL 521832 (S.D.N.Y. May 16, 2001); O’Neill v. Medad, 166 F.R.D. 19 (E.D.Mich.1996). Rule 36, strictly speaking, may not (W.D.Tenn.1989) (<HOLDING>). A substantial number of other courts, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that rule 36 requests for admissions are not included within the parameters of a general cutoff for discovery in a scheduling order (B) holding trial courts general charge concerning requests for admissions was a correct statement of law (C) holding that any general deadline for completion of discovery facially applies to requests for admissions (D) holding that requests for admissions are subject to discovery cutoff dates (E) holding that plaintiff need not have submitted requests for admissions by the august 15 discovery motion cutoff date or by the discovery cutoff date of september 15 because requests for admissions are distinct from other general discovery devices and are not subject to discovery cutoff dates
Output (English): holding that requests for admissions are subject to discovery cutoff dates