Wright v. Sandoval

Wright v. Sandoval · United States District Court, Eastern District of California · July 22, 2025 · No. 1:22-cv-01082-JLT-CDB

Summary

This United States District Court order resolves a discovery dispute regarding the defendant's motion to deem certain of the plaintiff's responses to requests for admissions as admitted. Applying Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 36 and 37, the court evaluated the plaintiff's initial vague and ambiguous objections alongside his untimely supplemental responses. The court ultimately granted the motion in part, deeming requests 3, 4, 8, 11, 12, 13, and 21 admitted, while denying the motion as to requests 6, 10, 14, 16, and 19.

Court
United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jurisdiction
United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Decision date
July 22, 2025
Docket number
1:22-cv-01082-JLT-CDB
Procedural posture
Defendant's motion to deem Plaintiff's responses to requests for admissions admitted
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Disposition
other

Topics

discovery disputecivil procedure

Practice areas

civil procedurecivil rights

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Plaintiff's vague and ambiguous objections to the requests for admissions satisfy Rule 36 requirements
  2. Whether the court may deem the contested requests admitted despite Plaintiff's untimely supplemental responses

Holdings

  1. Objections that merely label a request as vague or ambiguous without identifying the deficiency or offering alternative wording are insufficient; such requests are deemed admitted.
  2. The court may consider untimely supplemental responses and deem the requests admitted if the objections are insufficient and the court is not prejudiced.

Key quotations

The Court finds Plaintiff admits numbers 3, 4, and 8. Further, the Court finds Plaintiff denies numbers 6, 10, 14, 16 and 19. (at 10)
Numbers 3, 4, 8, 11, 12, 13, and 21 are deemed admitted; Defendant’s motion is denied in part as to numbers 6, 10, 14, 16 and 19. (at 6)

Factual background

Plaintiff Keith Jerome Wright sued Defendant alleging civil‑rights violations. Defendant served a set of requests for admissions on March 13, 2025. Plaintiff objected to several requests on the grounds of vagueness and ambiguity but provided no specific explanation. Plaintiff later filed supplemental responses that were untimely.

Procedural history

Plaintiff filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. §1983 action. Defendant served requests for admissions; Plaintiff objected as vague and ambiguous without proper basis. Defendant moved to deem the requests admitted. The court considered the motion and Plaintiff's supplemental responses.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…