Zavala v. Chrones et al

Filing 86

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion To Compel (Doc. 82 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 5/31/2012. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10 KEITH ZAVALA,
11
12

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01352-LJO-DLB PC
Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO COMPEL (DOC. 82)

v.

13 CHRIS CHRONES, et al.,
14

Defendants.

15

/

16
17

Plaintiff Keith Zavala (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

18 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in
19 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding
20 on Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed May 24, 2010, against Defendants Chris Chrones, S.
21 Kays, D. Smith, C. Martin, and Soto. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel,
22 filed December 29, 2011. Doc. 82. On January 13, 2012, Defendants filed their opposition.
23 Doc. 84. The matter is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).
24

Plaintiff contends that Defendant Martin failed to timely submit responses to Plaintiff’s

25 Requests for Admissions. Plaintiff seeks an order compelling responses, and $1200 in sanctions.
26 Mot. Compel 1-2.
27

The Court granted a discovery response deadline of December 16, 2011 by which to

28 serve their responses. Doc. 80. Defendant Martin concedes that his responses were untimely.
1

1 See Def. Counsel’s Decl., Doc. 84-1. However, Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s motion
2 should be denied and no sanctions imposed because 1) Defendant Martin has provided responses
3 to Plaintiff as of January 12, 2012, and 2) Plaintiff did not comply with Local Rule 251 in filing
4 his motion to compel. Defs.’ Opp’n 3:12-23.
5

It is undisputed by the parties that Defendant Martin’s responses were untimely. See Def.

6 Counsel’s Decl., Doc. 84-1. Unlike other discovery rules, if a party fails to timely submit a
7 response to a request for admission, then the matter is deemed admitted. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
8 36(a)(3) (stating that consequence for failure to timely respond to request for admission is that
9 matter is admitted). The imposition of costs pursuant to Rule 37 would be inapplicable, since no
10 further response is necessary once the requests for admission are deemed admitted.
11

If a party wishes to withdraw the admission, that party is required to file a motion. Fed.

12 R. Civ. P. 36(b). However, in the interest of judicial economy, the Court will construe
13 Defendant’s late filing of his responses to the reuqests for admission as a motion to withdraw the
14 prior admissions.
15

Pursuant to Rule 36(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

16

19

A matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the court, on
motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended. Subject to Rule
16(e), the court may permit withdrawal or amendment if it would promote the
presentation of the merits of the action and if the court is not persuaded that it
would prejudice the requesting party in maintaining or defending the action on the
merits. An admission under this rule is not an admission for any other purpose and
cannot be used against the party in any other proceeding.

20

If upholding the admission would eliminate presentation of the merits of the action, then

17
18

21 allowing withdrawal of the admission would promote the presentation of the merits and satisfy
22 the first prong of the test. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b); see Conlon v. United States, 474 F.3d 616, 622
23 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Hadley v. United States, 45 F.3d 1345, 1348 (9th Cir. 1995)). The Court
24 finds that withdrawal of the admission would promote presentation of the merits of this action.
25 Defendant Martin clearly demonstrated an intent to supply actual responses to Plaintiff’s
26 Requests For Admission.
27

If the requesting party would be prejudiced such that he could not maintain the action on

28 its merits, then the motion to withdraw the admission cannot be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b).
2

1 The second prong inquiry should focus on the prejudice that the non-moving party would face at
2 trial. Conlon, 474 at 623. The Court also finds that Plaintiff as the requesting party is not
3 prejudiced in maintaining his action on the merits. This matter has not proceeded to trial, and no
4 dispositive motions have been adjudicated. Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendant
5 Martin’s withdrawal of admissions and permit the substitution of Defendant Martin’s January 12,
6 2012 responses.1
7
8
9

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed December 29, 2011, is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
3b142a

May 31, 2012

/s/ Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1

Local Rule 251 is not applicable in this action. Under the Court’s Discovery and
Scheduling Order, issued May 5, 2011, Local Rule 251 will not apply unless otherwise ordered.
28 Doc. 60.
3
27