Judge Ronald L. (“Ingenuity”) Buch need not exercise a great deal of his ingenuity in crafting a Rule 103(a) protective order for IRS, but in so doing he provides a useful checklist for objecting to inadmissible requests for admissions.

Now I’m a fan of requests for admissions. Rule 90 has no numerical limitation on the number of items as to which one may request admissions, unlike Rule 70(a) for interrogatories. So the crafty practitioner (or even craftier dodgeflogger) can duck the Rule 70(a) 25 item limit on interrogatories by framing her/his requests as requests for admissions.

Cf. Noel M. Parducci & Kenneth L. Parducci, et al., Docket No.: 20894-19, filed 2/27/23, but the real wag involved is Dennis Simpson, he of Docket No. 17771-21, of even date therewith, as my expensive colleagues say

Denny is on his Third (count ’em, third) request for admissions to IRS. This barrage causes IRS to bleat that Denny’s request consists of “171 apparently repetitive requests, is oppressive, appears designed to provoke annoyance, and subjects [the Commissioner] to undue burden.” Order, at p. 1.

Judge Ingenuity Buch is then forced to scrutinize Denny’s latest, and can salvage only two (count ’em, two) of Denny’s unguided missiles.

“Indeed, Mr. Simpson’s request is repetitive. It contains many requests that are duplicative within the Third Request for Admissions. It also contains many requests that overlap with, or are nearly identical to, requests in Mr. Simpson’s First and Second Requests for Admissions. The Commissioner responded to the first and second requests, and many of Mr. Simpson’s requests have been asked and answered. Additionally, the request repeatedly asks the Commissioner to admit to the contents of documents. Documents speak for themselves, and it is unduly burdensome to ask a party merely to verify that Mr. Simpson has properly restated the contents of a document. Another category of improper requests are several that are indecipherable because they are not complete sentences. Altogether, the Third Request for Admissions contains only two requests (nos. 131 and 132) that are understandable and neither ask the Commissioner to admit to the contents of a document nor to answer a request that he has already answered.” Order, at p. 1.

I’m thinking of adding this maneuver to my “Bamboozle Your Way to Victory At Discovery” archive. Thanks again to Judge Ruwe for a great idea. See my blogpost “Bamboozle Your Way to Victory,”4/27/20.

Except.

Word to Ch J Kathleen (“TBS = The Big Shillelagh”) Kerrigan: While you’re considering ex-Ch J Maurice B (“Mighty Mo”) Foley’s proposed amendments to the Rules from a year ago this March, y’all might wish to consider amending Rule 90(a) to limit the permissible number of requests for admissions.