Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-01180/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-01180-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL VELIZ, et al.,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

CINTAS CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendant(s). /

No. C 03-1180 SBA (MEJ)

ORDER DEEMING RFAs ADMITTED

AS TO CERTAIN PLAINTIFFS

Before the Court is the parties' joint discovery dispute letter, filed November 17, 2006,

regarding defendant Cintas Corporation's First Set of Requests for Admissions (RFAs) ("Joint

Letter"). (Doc. # 585.) On April 14, 2006, Cintas served its RFAs on 483 plaintiffs in this action. 

At the request of plaintiffs' counsel, Cintas granted an extension to respond to the RFAs until June

19, 2006. After plaintiffs served blanket objections on behalf of all 483 plaintiffs on June 21, Cintas

and plaintiffs' counsel entered into a stipulation, which provided that plaintiffs would have until

September 8, 2006 to serve answers to each RFA. The stipulation further provided:

To “answer” an individual RFA, the plaintiff shall specifically admit 

the matter or specifically deny the matter or set forth in detail the 

reason why the answering plaintiff cannot truthfully admit or deny the 

matter, and shall set forth such other information as is more fully 

described in and required by Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure as to an answer to an RFA. 

An objection or objections without an “answer” to any RFA or 

Interrogatory does not qualify as an “answer” to such RFA or 

Interrogatory under this Stipulation. By this Stipulation, and in any 

Case 5:03-cv-01180-RS Document 594 Filed 01/22/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Provided, however, that this Order shall not apply to any of the 93 above-referenced plaintiffs whose claims may

have been voluntarily dismissed under Judge Armstrong's January 22, 2007 Order (Doc. #592).

2

event, Cintas does not agree to an extension pursuant to which any

plaintiff could serve an objection to any RFA or Interrogatory that is

not accompanied by an “answer” to that RFA or Interrogatory. 

(Joint Letter at 1-2.) The parties subsequently extended this stipulation to September 15, 2006.

On September 15, 2006, on behalf of 216 plaintiffs, plaintiffs' counsel served the following

 statement as to each RFA:

Plaintiff can neither admit nor deny this Request as plaintiffs’ counsel 

has made, and continues to make, a reasonable, extensive and good 

faith investigation into the matters addressed by this Request, and the 

information currently available is insufficient to allow this Request to 

be admitted or denied. 

(Joint Letter at 2.) 

On November 8, 2006, Cintas moved that the Court rule the matters in the RFAs to be

admitted. (Doc. #553.) On November 14, 2006, the Court found Cintas' RFAs relevant, especially

given the parties' July 13, 2006 stipulation and the apparent compliance with the request by over 200 

plaintiffs. (Doc. #556.) However, the Court found that deeming the requests admitted for those optin plaintiffs that had yet to respond might effectively dismiss certain plaintiffs and permitted them

until December 14 to comply with the requests. Id. The Court warned that failure to respond by that

date may result in the imposition of sanctions, including deeming the requests admitted.

In the Joint Letter, Cintas states that 93 plaintiffs have still not provided responses to the

RFAs. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36, the failure to timely respond to requests for

admissions results in automatic admissions of the matters requested. F.T.C. v. Medicor LLC, 217 F.

Supp. 1048, 1053 (C.D. Cal. 2002). Here, Cintas stipulated to three extensions of the due date and

the Court gave the plaintiffs an additional 30 days to respond. Despite having over eight months to

provide responses, 93 plaintiffs have failed to do so. Their failure to do so prejudices Cintas. 

Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 36, the Court deems the RFAs admitted as to the 93 plaintiffs

listed in Exhibit A of the parties' Joint Letter.1

 So as to avoid any future disputes that these plaintiffs

have somehow responded through the June 21, 2006 or September 15, 2006 blanket objections, the

Case 5:03-cv-01180-RS Document 594 Filed 01/22/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Court strikes those objections as to the 93 plaintiffs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2007 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:03-cv-01180-RS Document 594 Filed 01/22/07 Page 3 of 3