None of the cases cited by Berg involved a motion for protective order being filed in response to discovery. The parties in those cases simply failed to respond to the RFAs, and did so without seeking a protective order. No court will deem RFAs admitted where a protective order is sought under such circumstances. That would be reversible error.
You sound like you might be a lawyer so I’ll ask you this: does a motion for a protective order mean that even if it’s not ruled on all motions that require a response by a given time can be ignored until the judge rules on the protective order motion? If so that would be a major oversight by Berg, who appears to be a competent attorney.
But if the restraining/delaying/whatever order is not _granted_, which apparently it wasn’t, isn’t the point moot and today is BHO’s last day to either put up or [be] shut up? Just _asking_ for restraint/delay/dismissal isn’t grounds for not meeting an otherwise effective deadline.