The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Presently before the court is defendant's motion to withdraw admissions that were deemed admitted upon defendant's failure to respond to plaintiff's requests for admission for approximately nine months (Dkt. No. 52).*fn1 Specifically, defendant seeks to withdraw his admissions to plaintiff's requests for admission numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 12, and 13. Plaintiff opposes defendant's motion (Dkt. Nos. 57, 60).
The court heard this matter on its law and motion calendar on October 27, 2011. (Minutes, Oct. 27, 2011, Dkt. No. 63.) Assistant United States Attorney J. Earlene Gordon appeared on behalf of defendant. Plaintiff, who is proceeding without counsel, appeared at the hearing and represented herself.
The undersigned has fully considered the parties' briefs, oral arguments, and the appropriate portions of the record in this case. For the reasons that follow, the undersigned grants defendant's motion to withdraw his admissions to plaintiff's requests for admission numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 12, and 13. However, plaintiff will be granted additional time to conduct discovery in this case in order to mitigate any potential prejudice caused by the grant of relief to defendant. Within 14 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file a status report addressing the additional discovery that she wishes to conduct and any additional discovery-related motions that she wishes to file and have heard prior to opposing defendant's motion for summary judgment.*fn2
In this employment discrimination and retaliation case, plaintiff alleges five claims for relief framed in four enumerated claims: claims for discrimination and retaliation on the basis of plaintiff's disability, which also incorporates a claim for failure to accommodate plaintiff's disability; and claims of race-based discrimination and retaliation. (See Third Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 27-43, Dkt. No. 22.) In the course of discovery, plaintiff served defendant with the following requests for admission that are at issue here:
1. Admit that plaintiff was a person with a disability under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 in 2007 and 2008.
2. Admit that plaintiff was a "qualified" individual with a disability under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 in 2007 and 2008.
3. Admit that plaintiff, with or without reasonable accommodation, was able to perform the essential functions of her job in 2007 and 2008.
4. Admit that providing plaintiff with a reasonable accommodation of her disability in 2007 and 2008 would not have caused the Agency an undue burden.. . .
7. Admit that the duties of the job USPS offered to plaintiff in Mountain View, CA beginning on or about June 22, 2007 were not consistent with plaintiff's medical restrictions at that time. . ..
12. Admit that USPS failed to submit a report to Human Resources as required by ELM 365.242(c) prior to plaintiff's termination.
13. Admit that USPS failed to make every effort to assign plaintiff to limited duty consistent with her medically defined work ...