United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER DEEMING MATTERS ADMITTED (ECF No. 212)
GARY S. AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiffs Michael and Shelly Ioane are a married couple involved in tax disputes with the United States. Current defendants are Jean Nole, Jeff Hodges, and Brian Applegate, federal agents who assisted in searching Plaintiffs' residence in 2006 ("Defendants"). Mr. Ioane was convicted of tax fraud conspiracy on October 3, 2011 as a result, in part, of evidence that was obtained during the search. On March 10, 2014, Plaintiff Michael Ioane filed a Motion requesting the Court to deem requests for admissions admitted. (ECF No. 212.) Defendants oppose this Motion. (ECF No. 216.) The Court has reviewed the papers and determined that this matter is suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(l). Based on a review of the pleadings, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 provides that "[a] party may serve on any other party a written request to admit, for purposes of the pending action only, the truth of any matter 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." If the responding party fails to serve a written answer or objection within thirty days "after being served, " the matter is deemed admitted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a)(3). A matter that is admitted is "conclusively established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission." Switchmusic.com, Inc. v. U.S. Music Corp., 416 F.Supp.2d 812, 817 (C.D. Cal. 2006) ("The 30 day time period for responding to requests for admission begins to run on the date on which the requests were delivered to the agency designated to make delivery, ' and not on the date the answering party receives them'").
Plaintiff served the twenty-four requests for admissions at issue on January 27, 2014 and Defendants received those requests on February 3, 2014. On February 26, 2014, Defendants served responses to the requests for admissions on Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that he did not receive any response to the requests as of March 6, 2014. (Motion 2, ECF No. 212.) However, he appears to have received them by March 10, 2014; the responses are attached as exhibits to a different discovery motion filed shortly thereafter. (Motion to Compel Interrogatories Exhs. A-E, ECF No. 213.) Moreover, Rule 36 only requires that responses be "served" within thirty days, not that they be received within that period. Defendants' responses were thus timely and no matters will be deemed admitted because of any failure to respond.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted ...