Jackson v. County of Sacramento Department of Health and Human Services, 2:16-cv-00920-MCE-GGH. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20181005997
Visitors: 2
Filed: Oct. 04, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 04, 2018
Summary: ORDER GREGORY G. HOLLOWS , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Compel further responses to the following: "Request for Admission no. 22: (sic): Do you admit or deny that Kaiser Hospital has a policy that physicians cannot approve an FMLA unless the family member needing the care resides with the person requesting the leave." Defendant responded: "Defendant has insufficient information to admit or deny said request." DISCUSSION Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(4) addre
Summary: ORDER GREGORY G. HOLLOWS , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Compel further responses to the following: "Request for Admission no. 22: (sic): Do you admit or deny that Kaiser Hospital has a policy that physicians cannot approve an FMLA unless the family member needing the care resides with the person requesting the leave." Defendant responded: "Defendant has insufficient information to admit or deny said request." DISCUSSION Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(4) addres..
More
ORDER
GREGORY G. HOLLOWS, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Compel further responses to the following: "Request for Admission no. 22: (sic): Do you admit or deny that Kaiser Hospital has a policy that physicians cannot approve an FMLA unless the family member needing the care resides with the person requesting the leave." Defendant responded: "Defendant has insufficient information to admit or deny said request."
DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(4) addresses this issue as follows:
If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. . . . The answering party may assert lack of knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to admit or deny. (Emphasis added.)
Defendant has failed to indicate whether any inquiry was made and, if so, what the response was.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further Response to Request for Admission No. 22 is GRANTED;
2. Defendant shall provide a response to Admission No. 22 that conforms to the dictates of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(4) within 10 days of the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
