Gubanov v. Stanislaus County et al
Filing
40
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 04/07/2016 RECOMMENDING the 12/3/14 status (pretrial scheduling) order be MODIFIED and the discovery deadline EXTENDED for the limited purpose of resolving plaintiff's motion to withdraw admissions and GRANTING 32 Motion to be Relieved from Deemed Admissions. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections due within 7 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Jackson, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
EVGENIY GUBANOV,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:14-cv-1731-JAM-EFB
Plaintiff,
v.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
STANISLAUS COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
This case was before the court on April 6, 2016, for hearing on plaintiff’s motion to be
18
relieved from deemed admissions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 36. ECF No. 32. Attorney Julia Swanson
19
appeared on behalf of plaintiff; attorney Dan Farrar appeared on behalf of defendants. For the
20
reasons stated on the record, and as explained in further detail below, it is recommended that the
21
court’s scheduling order be modified for the limited purpose of resolving the instant motion and
22
that plaintiff’s motion be granted.
23
On December 22, 2015, defendants served plaintiff requests for admissions. Declaration
24
of Julia Swanson (“Swanson Decl.”) (ECF No. 33 at 8-9) ¶ 3. On January 25, 2016, the day
25
plaintiff’s responses were due, plaintiff’s counsel was in trial and was unable to mail timely
26
responses. Id. The next day, January 26, Ms. Swanson was informed that defendants’ counsel
27
had left for the day. Mr. Swanson emailed defendants’ counsel and requested a two-week
28
extension of time to provide responses. Id. ¶ 4. Two days later, on January 28, defendants
1
1
responded to plaintiff’s email, denying the request for an extension of time. Id. Plaintiff’s
2
counsel subsequently emailed defendants’ counsel requesting an agreement to serve responses by
3
email. Id. Plaintiff’s counsel attached the discovery responses to that email. Id. In his response
4
to the email, “Defendants’ counsel cordially agreed to email service.” Id.
5
Nonetheless, defense counsel now asserts that the request for admissions are deemed
6
admitted. On March 22, 2016, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which is noticed
7
for hearing before the assigned district judge on April 19, 2016. ECF No. 30. That motion relies,
8
at least in part, on the alleged deemed admissions. See ECF No. 30-1 at 2, 6, 7. The following
9
day, plaintiff filed the instant motion to withdraw his admissions.1
10
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 36(b) provides that “[a] matter admitted under
11
this rule is conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be
12
withdrawn or amended.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b). Whether a party is entitled to relief in the form of
13
withdrawal or amendment of responses to requests for admissions lies within the discretion of the
14
district court. Conlon v. United States, 474 F.3d 616, 621 (9th Cir. 2007). A party may withdraw
15
or amend an admission if the court finds (1) that withdrawal will aid in presenting the merits of
16
the case, and (2) no substantial prejudice to the party who requested the admission will result
17
from allowing the admission to be withdrawn or amended. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b); see Conlon, 474
18
F.3d at 625 (court must consider both factors in deciding motion to withdraw or amend).
19
Here, the first prong is satisfied. The request for admissions at issue essentially requests
20
plaintiff to admit that there is no basis for his claims. See ECF No. 33 at 7-8. Plaintiff is
21
requested to admit that he has no factual basis to support his claim that defendants are liable for
22
the injuries alleged in the complaint. Id., RFA Nos. 1, 2, 3. The requests go to the core of
23
plaintiff’s claims and if the admissions are not withdrawn, the case would be decided on a
24
procedural technicality and not on the underlying merits of the case.
25
1
26
27
28
The motion was originally filed before the assigned district judge in violation of Local
Rule 302(c). After the original hearing date was vacated, plaintiff filed an application for an
order shortening time, requesting that the undersigned hear the matter on April 6, 2016, as that
was the only law an motion date available prior to the hearing on the motion for summary
judgment. ECF No. 35. That request was granted. ECF No. 36.
2
1
As to the prejudice prong, the court focuses on the “the prejudice that the nonmoving
2
party would suffer at trial.” Conlon, 474 F.3d at 623-24 (stating additionally that “prejudice must
3
relate to the difficulty a party may face in proving its case at trial”). The party who relies upon
4
the deemed admissions has the burden of proving prejudice. Id. at 622. Here, defendants have
5
failed to demonstrate any prejudice. Indeed, defendants’ opposition, rather than addressing the
6
merits of plaintiff’s motion, argues that plaintiff’s motion should be denied because it is untimely
7
under the court’s scheduling order. ECF No. 38.
8
9
The court’s scheduling order provides that all discovery shall be completed by February
19, 2016. ECF No. 12 at 3. The order further provides that the term “‘completed’ means that all
10
discovery shall have been conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes
11
relative to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order if necessary, where discovery
12
has been ordered, the order has been complied with.” Id.
13
The discovery deadline has passed. Assuming that the instant motion is subject to that
14
deadline rather than dispositive motion deadline, the court nonetheless finds good cause to extend
15
the discovery deadline for the limited purpose of resolving the instant discovery dispute.2 See
16
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s
17
consent.”). After plaintiff’s counsel was notified that defendants would not agree to a two-week
18
extension of time, counsel promptly emailed plaintiff’s discovery responses and requested that
19
email service be accepted. Swanson Decl. ¶ 4. According to plaintiff, “Defendants’ counsel
20
cordially agreed to email service.” Id. It was not until defendants moved for summary judgment
21
that plaintiff’s counsel became aware that defendants considered the admissions untimely and
22
would rely on them in moving for summary judgment. ECF No. 32 at 3. Although plaintiff
23
could have moved to withdraw the admissions after defendant declined her request for an
24
extension of time, given that defendants subsequently agreed to email service, it was reasonable
25
26
27
28
2
The court notes that it is not entirely clear whether the instant motion is untimely under
the court’s scheduling order. The motion differs from the typical discovery dispute concerning
whether something is or is not discoverable. Here, the only issue is whether the admissions
should be set aside, and regardless of the outcome no further discovery would be permitted.
However, in either case, the court recommends that the scheduling order be modified to permit
resolution of this motion.
3
1
for plaintiff to assume that defendants would treat the responses as timely. As plaintiff did not
2
learn that defendants considered the admissions untimely after the close of discovery, good cause
3
exists to modify the scheduling order.
4
More significantly, modifying the scheduling order to allow the admissions to be
5
withdrawn would facilitate the strong public policy favoring resolution of cases on the merits.
6
See Doctors Medical Center of Modesto, Inc. v. Principal Life Ins. Co., 2011 WL 831421, at *3
7
(E.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2011) (“The Ninth Circuit has repeatedly held, in a variety of procedural
8
contexts, that the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits strongly counsels
9
against dismissal of a case or sanctions that are ultimately case-terminating.”) (citing In re
10
Phenylpropanolamine Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006)). Thus, good
11
cause exists to modify the scheduling order.
12
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that:
13
1. The December 3, 2014 status (pretrial scheduling) order be modified and the discovery
14
deadline extended for the limited purpose of resolving plaintiff’s motion to withdraw admissions;
15
and
16
17
18
2. Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw his admission be granted (ECF No. 32) and the deemed
admissions be set aside.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
19
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within seven days after
20
being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with
21
the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to
22
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the
23
specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158
24
F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
25
DATED: April 7, 2016.
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?