Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00392/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00392-41/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS MANUEL GARCES,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. GAMBOA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG (PC)

ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL WRITTEN 

RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR 

ADMISSION

(ECF No. 181).

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel written responses to requests for 

admission. (ECF No. 181). For the following reasons, the Court will grant, in part, Plaintiff’s 

motion and order Defendants to respond to the first 15 requests for admission (“RFAs”) as 

described in this order.

I. DISCUSSION

On November 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed a “Declaration in support for Requests for 

Admission and Motion to Compel Defendants to Answer Production of Documents and to 

Answer Interrogatory Requests.” (ECF No. 181). In this filing, Plaintiff states that he has 

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 199 Filed 12/13/23 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

requested Defendants’ answer to the requests for admission submitted on August 16, 2023, and 

Defendants have refused to answer based on the “old scheduling order” and the order granting 

Defendants’ third motion to modify the scheduling order. (Id., pp. 1).

On November 14, 2023, the Court directed Defendants to file a response indicating 

whether they ever received or responded to the RFAs that Plaintiff stated were sent on August 16, 

2023. (ECF No. 187, p. 4-5). The Court otherwise denied Plaintiff’s motion. (Id., p. 5).

On November 28, 2023, Defendants filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff’s request. 

(ECF No. 193). Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s motion to compel “should be denied because the 

Request[s] for Admission were untimely served and exceeded the number permitted by the 

Scheduling Order.” (Id., p. 2). In support of their opposition, Defendants include the declaration 

of Defendants’ counsel, Peter D. Lewicki, who provides as follows:

3. On August 22, 2023, I received an ECF notification email of Plaintiff’s filing of 

ECF No. 172. Included in this filing were “Request[s] for Admission” and an 

accompanying proof of service by mail. (ECF No. 172 at pp. 42-50.) The Office of 

the Attorney General also received via mail the same Request[s] for Admission 

and accompanying proof of service.

4. According to the proofs of service by mail, Plaintiff served the Request[s] for 

Admission on August 16, 2023. Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, all non-expert 

discovery was to be completed no later than August 24, 2023. (ECF No. 78 at p. 

5:21-22.) The Scheduling Order further provided 45 days for all responses to 

written discovery requests. (Id. at p. 3:14-15.)

5. Although service of the Request[s] for Admission were untimely under the 

terms of the Scheduling Order, I nevertheless calendared the deadline to serve 

responses and objections from the date of service by mail, with the additional three 

days afforded for service by mail by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d). Based 

on this calculation, I determined the deadline to serve responses and objections as 

October 3, 2023.

6. On October 3, 2023, Defendants timely served objections to Plaintiff’s 

Request[s] for Admission. For each of the 27 requests, Defendants objected on the 

basis that the requests were untimely served. For requests that exceeded the 15 

permitted by the Scheduling Order, Defendants also objected on this additional 

basis. Based on these objections, no substantive responses were provided. A true 

and correct copy of Defendants’ objections to the requests, and accompanying 

proof of service by mail, is attached to this declaration as Exhibit A.

(ECF No. 193-1, p. 2). 

Here, Plaintiff’s discovery requests seek specific information from Defendants regarding 

the use of force incident underlying Plaintiff’s claims. (See ECF No. 172, pp. 42-45). Thus, 

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 199 Filed 12/13/23 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Plaintiff’s requests are discoverable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 36(a) (“A party may serve on any other party a written request, for purpose of the pending 

action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to [facts, the 

application of law to fact, or opinions about either, and the genuineness of any described 

document].”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (“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. . .”).

The Court appreciates Defendants’ position that Plaintiff’s August 16, 2023 RFAs were 

untimely because they were served on Defendants without providing Defendants forty-five days 

to return written responses before the close of non-expert discovery on August 24, 2023. 

However, in light of the multiple extension requests the Court has granted to Defendants 

regarding discovery since the scheduling order was issued (see ECF Nos. 102, 124, 133, 139, 154, 

160, 166, 173, and 186), the Court will grant, in part, Plaintiff’s motion to compel. Hallett v. 

Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (district court have broad discretion to permit or deny 

discovery); Marchand v. Mercy Med. Ctr., 22 F.3d 933, 936-37 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Parties may not 

view requests for admission as a mere procedural exercise requiring minimally acceptable 

conduct. They should focus on the goal of the Rules, full and efficient discovery, not evasion and 

word play.”). 

However, the Court will sustain Defendants’ objections to Plaintiff’s RFAs to the extent 

they are based on the limitation in the scheduling order that “[a] party may serve on any other 

party no more than. . .15 requests for admission” without requesting leave with the Court 

“explaining why additional discovery requests are necessary.” (ECF No. 78, p. 3). Plaintiff has 

not requested or provided good cause for an exception to this rule. Therefore, Defendants need 

only respond to the first 15 RFAs per party in the set.

Accordingly, the Court will order Defendants to provide substantive written responses to 

Plaintiff’s RFAs that were included in Plaintiff’s August 16, 2023 filing. (See ECF No. 172, pp. 

42-45). However, Defendants need only respond to the first 15 requests. (Id., pp. 42-43).

\\\

\\\

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 199 Filed 12/13/23 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

II. ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 

181) is granted, in part, as follows: 

a. Defendants shall serve Plaintiff written responses to Plaintiff’s first 15 RFAs (ECF 

No. 172, pp. 42-43) by no later than January 26, 2024. Defendants shall also file a 

notice of compliance with the Court.

b. Plaintiff’s motion is otherwise denied as consistent with the Court’s November 14, 

2023 order. (ECF No. 187, p. 5 (“Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 181) is otherwise 

DENIED.”)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2023 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 199 Filed 12/13/23 Page 4 of 4