Free Order on Motion in Limine - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

..... ill. .... ..4 . .. ,iallllii._..l...._l.."..wmMml..............."WD..»—........%".—»~...-———mL——
Case 3:03-cv-00924-AVC Document 26 Filed 09/24/2004 Page 1 of 2 I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT wma, nw.m
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Smgii Wjig
DIRECTV, Inc., :
Pl¤i¤tiff» jg Zim ESE? 214 F) 3= Gb
V5- Q; Civil N°* 3*°°?i‘?$4‘?:9%%Eii:i·%Y¤§¤>.¤;‘¢:‘s‘
Bernard Thomas, 2 °/a‘w¥?W&L U?
Defendant. :
RULING ON THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE
This is an action for damages and injunctive relief brought
pursuant to 47 U.S.C § 605 and 18 U.S.C. § 2511 arising out of
the defendant’s alleged manufacture, use, and distribution of
devices to illegally intercept the plaintiff Direct TV's
satellite television programming.
On June 23, 2004, the plaintiff filed the within motion in
limine (document no. 15). The motion states that the defendant
has failed to answer “certain specific requests for admission.”
The plaintiff requests pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 36 that
certain facts now be “deemed admitted.”
On August 30, 2004, the pgp se defendant filed a response
stating that he had “attempted to respond" to the requests for
admission by “delivering his responses to the Offices of Judge
Alfred Covello instead of the Clerk’s Office.” The defendant
attached his response admissions and certified that he had mailed
a copy to the plaintiff’s attorney.






Case 3:03-cv-00924-AVC Document 26 Filed 09/24/2004 Page 2 of 2 I
2 l
Rule 36(a) states in relevant part: g
The matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after l
service of the request, or within such shorter or
longer time as the court may allow . . . the party to
whom the request is directed serves upon the party . .
. a written answer or objection . . .
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(emphasis added). Rule 36(a) does not
require that the court deem as admitted all late answers to
requests for admission. In contrast, the court may grant parties
additional time to serve their responses. See Local Union No.38
v. Tripodi, 913 F. Supp. 290, 293—94(S.D.N.Y. l996)(refusing to
deem as admitted requests for admission when the prg sg defendant
failed to respond; noting “the failure to respond in a timely
fashion does not require the court automatically to deem all
matters admitted").
Having considered the arguments and applicable law, the
court grants the defendant an extension of time to respond to the
requests for admission ngng pro Lung. Accordingly, the court
DENIES the plaintiff's motion in limine (document no. 15).
The court notes that Local Rule 5(e) states that requests
for admission “shall not be filed with the Clerk’s Office except
by order of the Court.” The defendant shall serve the defendants
with the answers to the requests for admission by October 4,
2004.
It is so ordered this Egfiyday of September, 2004 at Hartford,
Connecticut. "U n A* 47 py
AlfredpU.lCovello
United States District Judge
I