time to allow responses to be completed and filed prior to the close of discovery.” (ECF No. 16 at 2.) A party must respond to requests for admission within thirty days after being served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3). Thus, because Defendant did not serve Plaintiff with its requests for admission until November 5, 2015, the Court must reject its argument that the requests are deemed admitted. See, e.g., Allen v. DeRose, No. 1:07-CV-1720, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63335, at *3 n. 1, 2009 WL 2230598, at *1 n. 1 (M.DJPa. July 23, 2009) (noting that the plaintiffs discovery request was untimely because he served it only two weeks before the close of discovery); Tech. Dev. Co. v. Onischenko, No. 05-CV-4282, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9288, at *6-7, 2009 WL 311162, at *2-3 (D.N.J. Feb. 9, 2009) (<HOLDING>); Nesselrotte v. Allegheny Energy, No.
holding that any general deadline for completion of discovery facially applies to requests for admissions holding whether judge erred in granting summary judgment because discovery requests were outstanding was not preserved when appellant did not ask for a continuance to complete discovery holding that not only must discovery requests be reasonably tailored to include only matters relevant to case but discovery requests may not be used as fishing expedition or to impose unreasonable discovery expenses on opposing party holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law holding that the defendants discovery requests were untimely because they were not served in time for the responses to be due before the discovery deadline