Ransom v. Herrera et al

Filing 290

ORDER Granting Defendants' 261 Motion to Amend Responses to Requests for Admission, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 8/13/19. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

LEONARD RANSOM, JR.,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

v.
DANNY HERRERA and RICKY
BRANNUM,

Case No. 1:11-cv-01709-LJO-EPG (PC)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO AMEND RESPONSES TO
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
(ECF NO. 261)

Defendants.

16
17

On July 17, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to amend responses to requests for

18

admission. (ECF No. 261). “Plaintiff served requests for admission regarding who was

19

responsible for closing the food port door, and Defendants incorrectly responded by admitting

20

that Defendant Brannum closed that door. This error was compounded when Herrera

21

responded to a follow-up request concerning the truthfulness of his prior discovery responses.”

22

(ECF No. 261-1, p. 2) (citations omitted). “Defendants seek to amend a total of four responses

23

to requests for admission : Defendant Herrera’s Responses to Request for Admission, Set One,

24

Requests Nos. 4 and 11; Defendant Brannum’s Response to Request for Admission, Set One,

25

Request No 2; and Defendant Herrera’s Response to Request for Admission, Set Two, Request

26

No. 5. Defendants seek to amend their responses to reflect that Defendant Herrera closed the

27

food port door and to clarify Herrera’s response to follow-up discovery requests.” (ECF No.

28
1

1

261-1. p. 3) (footnote omitted).

2

On July 31, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel filed an opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 268).1

3

Plaintiff argues that the motion should be denied because it was filed approximately a year after

4

the requests for admission were answered, and two days after the Court issued its pretrial order.

5

(Id. at 2). “There has been no explanation of the delay in filing a request to amend the

6

admissions until after the issuing of the Pretrial Order. Additionally, even if the Court allows

7

the amendments, [P]laintiff will still have the opportunity to impeach the defendants with the

8

prior responses. Plaintiff submits the amendment does not promote the presentation of the

9

merits of the action and therefore, must be denied.” (Id.).

10

On August 6, 2019, Defendants filed their reply. (ECF No. 277).

11

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(b), “[a] matter admitted under this rule is

12

conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or

13

amended. Subject to Rule 16(e), the court may permit withdrawal or amendment if it would

14

promote the presentation of the merits of the action and if the court is not persuaded that it

15

would prejudice the requesting party in maintaining or defending the action on the merits.”

16

Upon consideration, the Court will allow Defendants to amend the above-listed

17

responses to Plaintiff’s requests for admission. Given Defendants’ motion, it would promote

18

the presentation of the merits of the action to allow amendment because it no longer appears

19

that the previously admitted information should be considered “conclusively established.”

20

Defendants now contest their initial response to the request for admission, and Plaintiff does

21

not argue that the previously admitted information is true and should be found conclusively

22

established.

23

That said, Plaintiff is correct that Plaintiff will still have the opportunity to impeach the

24

defendants with the prior responses. Nothing in this order precludes Plaintiff from introducing

25
26
1

27
28

Plaintiff also filed an opposition pro se. (ECF No. 274). On August 12, 2019, Defendants filed a
motion to strike Plaintiff’s pro se opposition. (ECF No. 279 & 280). The Court will not strike the pro se
opposition. However, as Plaintiff is represented by counsel and his counsel filed an opposition, the Court will
disregard Plaintiff’s pro se opposition.
2

1

Defendants’ initial responses to the requests for admission for any reason other than to hold

2

that the previously admitted information is conclusively established as a fact.

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants have leave to amend

4

defendant Herrera’s Responses to Request for Admission, Set One, Requests Nos. 4 and 11;

5

defendant Brannum’s Response to Request for Admission, Set One, Request No 2; and

6

defendant Herrera’s Response to Request for Admission, Set Two, Request No. 5. Defendants

7

must serve any amended responses no later than 14 days from the date of this order.

8
9

Plaintiff may still attempt to use the original responses at trial for other purposes,
including impeachment.

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 13, 2019

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3