forth a discovery procedure at all because a party does not seek to discover a fact or opinion through a request for admission. Instead, a request seeks to have a party concede the genuineness of a fact or opinion that the requesting party believes to be settled. See 8A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2253 (2d ed.1994). The assertion that requests for admissions may not be, technically speaking, tools of discovery has led to a split of authority as to whether requests for admission should be subject to discovery cutoff dates. Some courts have held that requests for admission are not subject to discovery cutoff dates because, theoretically, a requesting party is not seeking to discover anything. See O’Neill, 166 F.R.D. at 21 (<HOLDING>); Hurt v. Coyne Cylinder Co., 124 F.R.D. 614,
holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law holding that plaintiff need not have submitted requests for admissions by the august 15 discovery motion cutoff date or by the discovery cutoff date of september 15 because requests for admissions are distinct from other general discovery devices and are not subject to discovery cutoff dates holding that a request for admission is a tool of discovery subject to discovery cutoff dates holding that rule 36 requests for admissions are not included within the parameters of a general cutoff for discovery in a scheduling order holding that any general deadline for completion of discovery facially applies to requests for admissions