The opinion of the court was delivered by: William W. Caldwell United States District Judge
Presently before the Court are two motions filed by the Plaintiff Jamie C. Bisker: (1) a motion to determine the sufficiency of requested admissions and (2) a motion for reconsideration of this Court's Order of July 16, 2008 (doc. 20) denying her motion for leave to designate an expert. After review, we will grant Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration but deny her motion to determine the sufficiency of requested admissions.
II. Procedural Background
The Plaintiff filed this action against her employer, GGS Information Services, Inc. ("GGS"), pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 P.S. § 951 et seq., alleging a failure to accommodate and disparate treatment. On November 27, 2007, we issued a scheduling order setting deadlines of April 1 and 30, 2008 for the Plaintiff and Defendant to designate their experts, respectively. The parties then engaged in discovery.
On April 17, 2008, a stipulated order was approved enlarging the time to discovery to June 30, 2008. On June 19, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to designate an expert. We denied this motion on July 16, 2008. On the same day, the Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of our order.
On September 22, 2008, we entered summary judgment in favor of the Defendant and dismissed the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration as moot. On July 24, 2009, the Third Circuit vacated our order and remanded for further proceedings. Bisker v. GGS Info. Services, Inc., No. 08-4277, 2009 WL 2196789 (3d Cir. July 24, 2009). Subsequently, the Plaintiff renewed her motion for reconsideration and also filed a motion to determine the sufficiency of requested admissions.
A. Motion for Sufficiency
Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that any party may "obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense." It is well settled that Rule 26 establishes a liberal discovery policy. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351, 98 S.Ct. 2380 (1978). As a general rule, discovery is permitted of any information that is relevant or may lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Lombardi v. Pugh, No. 05-300, 2009 WL 1619952, at *1 (M.D. Pa. June 9, 2009)(citation omitted).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a) governs requests for admissions and provides in relevant part:
A party may serve on any other party a written request to admit, for purposes of the pending action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to:
(A) facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either; and (B) the genuineness of ...