LOUISE W. FLANAGAN, District Judge.
The matter is before the court on defendant Donnie Harrison's ("Harrison") motion to strike (DE 47) and motion for extension of time (DE 50). In response, in part, to Harrison's motion to strike, plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery (DE 48). Plaintiff's motion to compel was fully briefed. In this posture, the issues raised are ripe for adjudication.
Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. Harrison subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment, raising the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. The defense of qualified immunity is "an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation."
Plaintiff served Harrison with a document captioned "Request for Admissions." In response, Harrison filed an objection to plaintiff's requests for admissions and motion to strike arguing that plaintiff's pleading contains only open ended questions that would more properly be defined as interrogatories, and are not capable of being answered as "admitted" or "denied."
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 governs requests for admissions. Rule 36 allows a party to "serve on any other party a written request to admit . . . the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to [] facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either; and [] the genuineness of any described documents."
In this case, plaintiff has not met his burden of fashioning his requests for admissions in a manner such that they can be answered with a simple admit or deny without an explanation. Rather, the court agrees with Harrison in that plaintiff's requests for admissions are more appropriately classified as interrogatories. Accordingly, the court SUSTAINS Harrison's objections to plaintiff's requests for admissions, and plaintiff's requests for admissions are construed as interrogatories. To the extent Harrison requests that plaintiff's requests for admissions/interrogatories be stricken from the record, his motion is DENIED.
Harrison filed a motion for extension of time to file dispositive motions. Dispositive motions were due on April 4, 2013, and Harrison filed his motion for summary judgment on April 25, 2013. For good cause shown, Harrison's motion for extension of time is GRANTED.
In summary, plaintiff's motion to compel (DE 48) is DENIED, and discovery is stayed as to Harrison pending a resolution of Harrison's affirmative defense of qualified immunity. The court SUSTAINS Harrison's objection to plaintiff's requests for admissions, but DENIES his motion to strike (DE 47). Harrison's motion for extension of time (DE 50) is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.