Case Name: Javier Lopez-Naranjo vs. Glenn Champagne, et al.
Case No.: 16CV303168

Defendants’ motion to deem requests for admissions admitted is DENIED. Defendants are relying on a technical defect to the verification that has been corrected. Moreover, no verification is required when only objections are served.

The motion to compel further responses to RFAs is DENIED. The Court finds that whether Plaintiff complied with, or understood the provisions of the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) is not relevant to the subject matter of the action, has no tendency to prove any relevant fact, and is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The RFAs do not seek discovery into whether Plaintiff had insurance, only whether he complied with a federal law. Moreover, many of the RFAs require Plaintiff to speculate as to what doctors would or would not charge, or if his medical expenses would be lower if Plaintiff had used insurance. The objections are SUSTAINED. As to RFAs 15 through 18, the response that Plaintiff lacks information to admit or deny are proper. Based on this ruling, the motion to compel further responses to FIs and RFPs is also DENIED.

Sanctions are DENIED.