GARY JONES, Magistrate Judge
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Supplemental Protective Order. (Doc. 29.) The United States advises that after it filed its previous motion for protective order (Doc. 27) with regard to Defendant's first, second and third requests for admissions, the Defendant served a fourth set of requests for admissions. On March 29, 2005 the Court entered an order granting the United States' motion for protective order (Doc. 28) excusing the United States from answering Defendant's first, second and third requests for admissions on the grounds that the requests were arbitrary and abusive and did not seek information having any nexus to the instant action.
The United States has attached to the instant motion the fourth set of requests for admissions, which the Court has reviewed. The fourth set of requests for admissions is no different from the first three sets in that the requests seek to elicit responses which have absolutely no nexus to the current cause and most of the items appear to delve into American colonial antiquity and broad concepts of federalism, while others merely constitute Defendant's misstatements of law and various political views regarding federal taxation.
Therefore, for the same reasons explained in detail in the Court's protective order entered on March 29, 2005 (Doc. 28), which reasons are fully incorporated into this Order, the Court concludes that the fourth requests for admission stray far afield of the limited parameters of discovery set forth by Rules 36(a) and 26(b)(1), and frustrate the underlying purpose of requests for admission as a discovery instrument.
See Marshall v. Planz, 145 F. Supp. 2d 1258, 1278 (M.D. Ala. 2001) Citing Burns v. Phillips 50 F.R.D. 187, 188 (N.D. Ga. 1970) ("The purpose of the rule pertaining to requests for admissions is to expedite trial by removing essentially undisputed issues, thereby avoiding the time, trouble and expense which otherwise would be required to prove those issues.")
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion For Supplemental Protective Order (Doc. 29) is hereby GRANTED, and Plaintiff is therefore not obligated to respond to pro se Defendant's Request for Admissions #4.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DONE AND ORDERED.