Solis v. Target Corporation

Filing 66

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 4/13/2016 ORDERING that plaintiff's 57 motion to withdraw deemed admissions is GRANTED. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAVIER SOLIS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-0686 KJM AC PS (TEMP)

v.

ORDER

TARGET CORPORATION,

15

Defendant.

16
On April 13, 2016, this matter came before the undersigned for hearing of plaintiff’s

17
18

motion to withdraw deemed admissions. Attorney Jill Telfer appeared on behalf of the plaintiff.

19

Attorney Enedina Cardenas appeared on behalf of the defendant.

20

Federal Rule of Civil of Procedure 36(b) provides that “the court may permit withdrawal .

21

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

22

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

23

See also Conlon v. U.S., 474 F.3d 616, 621 (9th Cir. 2007) (“rule permits the district court to

24

exercise its discretion to grant relief from an admission made under Rule 36(a) only when (1) the

25

presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved, and (2) the party who obtained the

26

admission fails to satisfy the court that withdrawal or amendment will prejudice that party in

27

maintaining the action or defense on the merits.”).

28

/////
1

1

“The first half of the test in Rule 36(b) is satisfied when upholding the admissions would

2

practically eliminate any presentation of the merits of the case.” Conlon, 474 F.3d at 622 (citing

3

Hadley v. U.S., 45 F.3d 1345, 1348 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Medina v. Donahoe, 854 F.Supp.2d

4

733, 748-49 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (“Where, as here, the admissions go directly to the ultimate

5

questions at issue in this case, the presentation of the merits of this action would be subserved if

6

defendant were allowed to prevail on the matters deemed to be admitted under Rule 36.”). Here,

7

upholding the admissions would practically eliminate any presentation of the merits of the case.

8

With respect to the second half of the test, “‘[t]he prejudice contemplated by Rule 36(b) . .

9

. . relates to the difficulty a party may face in proving its case, e.g., caused by the unavailability of

10

key witnesses, because of the sudden need to obtain evidence’ with respect to the questions

11

previously deemed admitted.’” Conlon, 474 F.3d at 622 (quoting Hadley v. U.S., 45 F.3d 1345,

12

1348 (9th Cir. 1995)). “The party relying on the deemed admission has the burden of proving

13

prejudice.” Id.; see also Sonoda v. Cabrera, 255 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The party who

14

obtained the admission has the burden of proving that allowing withdrawal of the admission

15

would prejudice its case.”). Here, defendant offers only a vague assertion that defendants may

16

have some difficulty locating some witnesses. In this regard, the court finds that defendant has

17

failed to prove prejudice.

18

Accordingly, upon consideration of the arguments on file and at the hearing, and for the

19

reasons set forth on the record at the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s March

20

18, 2016 motion to withdraw deemed admissions (ECF No. 57) is granted.1

21

DATED: April 13, 2016

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The court anticipates that the parties will comply with Local Rule 251 in bringing any future
discovery disputes. In this regard, instead of the responsive briefing provided by the parties, the
parties should have filed a joint statement. The court could have dropped plaintiff’s motion from
calendar due to plaintiff’s failure to file a joint statement, and will do so in the future if Rule 251
is violated.
2