Aimee L. Kingston v. Gregory Strange, Frank Caridi, Stephanie Danielson, Kevin Greiner, Connor Read, Dottie Fulginiti, Peter Deschenes, Robert Stetson, Christopher Anderson, Christopher Anderson, and Amos Keddem

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denies Defendants’ motion to quash Plaintiff’s second set of requests for admissions. The court holds that the seven distinct requests should not be multiplied by the number of defendants for purposes of Local Rule 26.1(c)’s discovery limits, and alternatively grants permission to serve the requests. The court also addresses and denies or declines to consider various sanctions and other requests included in Plaintiff’s lengthy opposition memorandum.

Holdings

1. Each distinct request for admission served on multiple opposing defendants is counted as a single request for purposes of Local Rule 26.1(c), rather than being counted separately for each defendant.
2. Defendants' motion to quash Plaintiff's second set of requests for admissions was denied.
3. Plaintiff's request for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(1) was denied.
4. Requests for relief unrelated to the motion to quash were denied without prejudice, and Plaintiff's forty-three-page opposition violated Local Rule 7.1(b)(4)'s twenty-page limit absent leave of court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Local Rule 26.1(c)'s twenty-five-request limit requires each request for admission to be counted separately for every defendant to whom it is served.
2. Whether Defendants were entitled to a protective order or order quashing Plaintiff's second set of requests for admissions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).
3. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 based on Defendants' interpretation of the local discovery limit.
4. Whether Plaintiff could obtain unrelated discovery relief and other remedies through her opposition to the motion to quash.

Disposition

other