“They did not file answers or objections or anything else to the request for admissions we served upon them on September 15,” Berg said to me shortly before midnight, noting that Obama and the DNC did in fact acknowledge service of the admission in their motion for protective order. “They knew the admissions were due. They knew they must object or answer specifically in 30 days. Here, they did nothing.”
That they responded with a motion for protective order instead of admitting or denying each of the RFAs does not mean that the RFAs are deemed admitted by automatic operation of Rule 36. The court will either deny the motion for protective order and direct Obama to respond to discovery, or grant the motion and then rule on the motion to dismiss.
From Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2040:
Ever since the days of the former equity bill for discovery there has been applied to discovery “the principle of judicial parsimony,” by which, when one issue may be determinative of a case, the court has discretion to stay discovery on other issues until the critical issue has been decided. In accordance with this principle—a salutary principle if it is applied sparingly and with real discretion rather than as an absolute rule—a court may decide that in a particular case it would be wise to stay discovery on the merits until challenges to jurisdiction have been resolved.I would not waste a breath of my precious life paying any attention to this case unless there were nothing else to do in the world.
The admissions were filed this morning.