It isn’t a “technicality” - as in “some trivial detail” - which is why a failure to respond is deemed to be an admission under the FRCP. It isn’t trivial, and no lawyer wants to go into a courtroom and try to explain how “the dog ate his homework,” particularly when compliance with teh discovery request is genuinely trivial, as it is in this case.
I do agree that no judge will do anything, but it is most likely because the courts have become corrupt and lawless, not because failure to observe the FRCP discovery rules is a mere “technicality”. The only legitimate way that O’s campaign could get away with this is if Berg lacks standing or the court lacks jurisdiction.
Well, technicality doesn’t mean “trivial”. Unfortunately, the misuse of the word “technicality” has often bestowed upon it such an unfortunate definition. In the accurate definition it is a technicality, i.e. something that is technical which is the nature or “rules”, i.e. the FRCP. “Trivial” likely isn’t even a listed definition of technicality. So I completely agree with you in that it isn’t trivial. Also, the fact that a Motion to Dismiss and Extend was filed by O likely obviates the need for a response to the Request for Admissions (I still haven’t checked the local rules so not 100% sure). But at the risk of being technical, it is one of those technicalities that make the legal system look, well, insane from time to time.