United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
RESICOM CUSTOM PAINTING AND MAINTENANCE, INC., an Illinois corporation, Plaintiff,
PROFESSIONAL RETAIL SERVICES, INC., a New York corporation, Defendant.
Michael T. Mason United States Magistrate Judge
opinion entered by the Honorable Michael T. Mason: For the
reasons set forth below, plaintiff Resicom Custom Painting
and Maintenance's motion to compel  is granted in
part and denied in part. Plaintiff's motion for leave to
file a reply  is denied. Status hearing scheduled for
September 28, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.
Resicom Custom Painting and Maintenance
("plaintiff") filed a lawsuit against defendant
Professional Retail Services ("defendant") alleging
claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The
parties engaged in mediation but were unable to reach a
resolution. Based on the mediation schedule and following an
agreed motion for an extension of time, the Court extended
fact discovery until August 1, 2017. On August 17, 2017,
pursuant to this Court's order, plaintiff filed this
present motion to compel.
motion  raises a number of issues regarding
defendant's response to plaintiff's first set of
requests for admission ("requests to admit"), first
set of supplemental interrogatories, and second supplemental
request to produce. Both pSiiiBS inciuCi© unnecessary
arguments snu assei Lions auCUi mS opposing siue ui3i srs not
at issue before this Court. Given the specifics of the
discovery requests at issue, the Court will address each
discovery requests individually.
36(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure addresses the
requirements for requests to admit:
(3) Time to Respond; Effect of Not Responding. A
matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served,
the party to whom the request is directed serves on the
requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to
the matter and signed by the party or its attorney. A shorter
or longer time for responding may be stipulated to under Rule
29 or be ordered by the court.
(4) Answer. 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. A denial
must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when
good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny
only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part
admitted and qualify or deny the rest. 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 enable it to admit or
26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the
parties to obtain discovery regarding "any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense
and proportional to the needs of the case." For each
item requested, the objecting party must "state with
specificity the grounds for objecting to the request,
including the reasons." Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(2)(B).
ruling on motions to compel discovery, courts have
consistently adopted a liberal interpretation of the
discovery rules." Kodish v, Oakbrook Terrace Fire
Prot. Dist, 235 F.R.D. 447, 450 (N.D. III. 2006)
(citation omitted); see Cannon v. Burge, No. 05 C
2192, 201 OWL 3714991, at *1 (N.D. III. Sept. 14, 2010)
("The federal discovery rules are liberal in order to
assist in trial preparation and settlement.").
"Courts commonly look unfavorably upon significant
restrictions placed upon the discovery process, " and
the "burden rests upon the objecting party to show why a
particular discovery request is improper."
Kodish, 235 F.R.D. at 450.
initial matter, in addition to requesting that certain
answers be compelled or documents produced, plaintiff asks
the Court to bar defendant from introducing any information
or documents that it did not identify or produce in
discovery. Whether or not certain documents or information
are barred for summary judgment purposes or at trial is a
matter for the District Court to determine.
their motion, plaintiff asserts that defendant's response
to the requests to admit was untimely. Specifically, the
response was due by July 24, 2017, and defendant served its
answers on July 29, 2017. Because the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure are clear regarding the timeline for answering
requests to admit and because defendant did not seek an
extension from the Court or plaintiff, plaintiff argues that
the requests should be deemed admitted or that objections
raised by defendant should be waived. In the event the Court
is not inclined to take one of those measures, plaintiff
addresses the relevancy of each individual request to admit
at issue. Plaintiff contends that the requests mainly seek to
authenticate certain ...