UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KEVIN J. MURRAY,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-cv-15147

vs. DISTRICT LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB

DEPARTMENT OF

TREASURY, SECRETARY OF, 

et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DETERMINE

SUFFICIENCY OF ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS

(DOCKET NO. 48)

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion To Determine Sufficiency Of

Answers And Objections To Requests For Admissions filed on April 12, 2010. (Docket no. 48). 

Defendants filed a response Memorandum In Opposition on April 26, 2010. (Docket no. 50). 

Plaintiff filed a Reply Brief on May 3, 2010. (Docket no. 52). This matter was referred to the

undersigned for determination pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). (Docket no. 49). The Court

dispenses with oral argument on these matters pursuant to E.D. Mich. Local Rule 7.1(f). (Docket

no. 51). The matter is fully briefed and the motion is ready for ruling. 

Plaintiff brings this motion asking the Court to determine the sufficiency of Defendants’

answers to twenty-one of the 182 Requests for Admissions which Plaintiff served on the individual 

Defendants on February 24, 2010. (Docket no. 48). The Court finds Defendants’ initial argument

in opposition persuasive. Defendants argue that “the sheer volume of these Requests is

-1-

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM Document 85 Filed 09/01/10 Page 1 of 4
objectionable” and raise their objection in their response to Requests for Admission dated March

26, 2010. (Docket nos. 50 at p. 2, 50-1 ¶ 6). Defendants provide case law to support the proposition

that courts, including this one, have limited parties to 25 requests for admission. Taylor v. Great

Lakes Waste Servs., Case No. 06-cv-12312, 2007 WL 422036 at *3 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 2, 2007). 

Plaintiff replies that Defendants’ argument is “misguided” where “Plaintiff has only sought

this Court’s intervention on 21 requests for admission.” (Docket no. 52). It is Plaintiff’s reply that

is misguided. Plaintiff’s argument would allow a party to circumvent any discovery limitations as

long as the Court’s intervention was not sought for more than the allowable number of discovery

requests. 

 Rule 36, Fed. R. Civ. P., allows a party to serve on any other party “a written request to

admit, . . . the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to: (A) facts, the

application of law to fact, or opinions about either; and (b) the genuineness of any described

documents.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1). Unlike Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, which explicitly limits

interrogatories to 25, Rule 36 does not contain an explicit limitation. Rule 26(b)(2)(A) provides that

the “court may limit the number of requests under Rule 36.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(A). Pursuant

to Rule 26(c)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., the Court may “for good cause, issue an order to protect a party

or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,” including

“forbidding the discovery or disclosure.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). 

As Defendants point out, case law supports a limitation in instances where the Court has

concluded that the number is oppressive and unduly burdensome. As this Court pointed out in

Taylor, many courts have limited by local rule the number of Requests for Admission to 25. See

Oklahoma ex. rel. Edmondson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 2007 WL 54831 (N.D.Okla. Jan.5, 2007)

-2-

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM Document 85 Filed 09/01/10 Page 2 of 4
(noting local rule limits requests for admission to 25 per party); Estate of Manship v. United States,

232 F.R.D. 552 (M.D.La. 2005) (requests for admission limited to 25 per local rule); Cf. Heartland

Surgical Specialty Hosp. v. Midwest Div., Inc., 2007 WL 3171768 at *3 (D. Kan. Oct. 29, 2007)

(court declines to limit requests for admission in “multi-defendant complicated anti-trust conspiracy

case”). 

The Court finds that 182 requests for admission is oppressive and unduly burdensome. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(A), (c)(1). There are only two named Defendants in this action and one Plaintiff

and the issues, while notably important, are fairly succinct. The Court does not find good cause to

impose the burden of the excessive number of requests on Defendants. Subtracting the twenty-one

requests at issue in Plaintiff’s motion from the 182 requests, Plaintiff does not challenge the

sufficiency of Defendants’ responses to 161 Requests for Admission and has been afforded ample

and broad discovery for the issues1

. 

Both Plaintiff and Defendants point out that many of Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission track

Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. (Docket no. 48 n.2). For example, Request for Admission No.

167 relates to First Amended Complaint ¶ 95 regarding “purification” of a Shariah-compliant

investment. (Docket nos. 45, 50-1). Defendants argue that “it is improper for a plaintiff to ‘re-serve

1

It is worth noting that Defendants provided with their Response Brief a copy of Plaintiff’s

182 requests for admission and Defendants’ responses. A review of the Requests themselves reveals

such non-complying Requests for Admission as No. 133: “The Quran is considered by Islam to be

the perfect expression of Allah’s will for man.” Request Nos. 133-153, 155, 156, 158 and 160-69 

continue the barrage of requests asking Defendants to admit or deny the words, subjects and beliefs

of the Quran, Islam, Sunna-stories of Mohammed’s life, tenants of Shariah and explanations of

Islamic law by scholars and non-parties to this action. The Court fails to see how these Requests

fall within the purview of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) or 36(a)(1). The Court can only surmise that

Defendants found it more efficient to serve responses and objections to these requests than to bring

this to the attention of the Court by filing a motion for protective order. 

-3-

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM Document 85 Filed 09/01/10 Page 3 of 4
the complaint in the form of a request for admissions’ in order to require a defendant to admit or

deny nearly every paragraph of a complaint a defendant has already answered.’” 7 MOORE’S FED.

PRACTICE § 36.10[7] (3d ed. 2009) (quoting Perez v. Miami-Dade County, 297 F.3d 1255, 1269

(11th Cir. 2002)). While the Court finds that this may well be another basis on which to deny

Plaintiff’s motion, the Court need not reach this analysis where Plaintiff’s 182 Requests for

Admission are unduly burdensome and oppressive. 

The Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion To Determine Sufficiency Of

Answers And Objections To Requests For Admissions (docket no. 48) is DENIED. 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), the parties have a period of fourteen days from the date

of this Order within which to file any written appeal to the District Judge as may be permissible

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Dated: September 1, 2010 s/ Mona K. Majzoub 

MONA K. MAJZOUB

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

PROOF OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of this Opinion and Order was served upon Counsel of

Record on this date.

Dated: September 1, 2010 s/ Lisa C. Bartlett 

Case Manager

-4-

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM Document 85 Filed 09/01/10 Page 4 of 4