Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Patience Ekpo, proceeding pro se, sued Lone Star Communications, Inc., which maintained that the complaint incorrectly named it as Lone Star Communications, LLC, in an employment-discrimination action. In August 2025, Ekpo served 208 requests for admission, 25 interrogatories, and 36 requests for production. LSC responded to the interrogatories and production requests but sought a protective order striking the requests for admission.
Ekpo separately moved to extend deadlines for seeking leave to amend pleadings, completing discovery, filing summary-judgment motions, and filing other motions. She argued that LSC’s discovery conduct had prevented her from determining whether she needed to amend her complaint.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied LSC’s motion for a protective order. LSC’s assertions that the admission requests were excessive, burdensome, harassing, or improperly used as discovery devices were conclusory and unsupported by affidavits or other evidence showing a particular burden. The court also rejected LSC’s reliance on pre-1970 precedent suggesting that Rule 36 cannot reach central disputed facts, explaining that requests may address ultimate facts and applications of law to fact.
The court did not decide which individual requests were improper and acknowledged that at least some might fall outside Rule 36. It nevertheless ordered LSC, no later than 30 days after the memorandum opinion and order was filed, to file amended answers to Ekpo’s requests for admission that fall within Rule 36’s scope. The court declined Ekpo’s request for sanctions because reasonable people could differ about whether responding to 208 requests was appropriate.
The court also denied Ekpo’s motion to modify the scheduling order. Even assuming she had addressed Rule 16(b)(4)’s four-factor test, her references to unspecified withheld facts and unspecified potential claims did not reasonably explain the requested extensions or establish their importance. Although the lack of identified prejudice to LSC favored Ekpo, those considerations did not outweigh her inadequate explanation and showing of importance.
Key Takeaways
- A party seeking protection from burdensome discovery must provide specific facts and evidence of the burden; conclusory characterizations are insufficient.
- Rule 36 permits requests concerning disputed or ultimate facts and applications of law to fact, although requests outside the rule’s scope need not be answered.
- A request to modify a scheduling order must establish good cause with a concrete explanation and a showing that the requested modification matters.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that the number of requests for admission, standing alone, does not establish the particularized burden required for a protective order. A party seeking wholesale relief must substantiate its objections and explain why the challenged requests are improper.
It also illustrates the specificity required under Rule 16(b)(4). Speculation that discovery might reveal facts supporting unidentified new claims will not ordinarily justify extending scheduling-order deadlines, even when the opposing party identifies no resulting prejudice.