Walker et al v. Unitrin Auto & Home Insurance Company et al

Filing 70

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting 69 Defendant's Leave to Amend. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MICHAEL WALKER,

8

Case No. 14-cv-03161-EMC

Plaintiff,

9
10
11

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
LEAVE TO AMEND

v.
UNITRIN AUTO & HOME INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,

Docket No. 69

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Defendants.
12
13

The parties have submitted a joint letter regarding a discovery dispute to the Court. The

14

dispute centers on whether Defendant Financial Indemnity Company (“FIC”) should be permitted

15

to amend its responses to certain requests for admission propounded by Plaintiff Michael Walker.

16

Having considered the joint letter, the Court hereby GRANTS FIC leave to amend its responses.

17

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(b),

18
19
20
21

22

[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the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or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) [which governs final pretrial
conference orders], 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.

23

Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b). Mr. Walker does not dispute that amendment would promote the

24

presentation of the merits of the action. Although he asserts prejudice, the Court finds that he has

25

failed to adequately establish such. See Hadley v. United States, 45 F.3d 1345, 1348 (9th Cir.

26

1995) (noting that “[t]he party who obtained the admission has the burden of proving that

27

withdrawal of the admission would prejudice the party’s case”). First, FIC is asking leave to

28

amend well in advance of trial, which is currently set for April 2016. See id. (noting that “[c]ourts

1

are more likely to find prejudice when the motion for withdrawal is made in the middle of trial”).

2

Second, although fact discovery is to close on October 8, 2015, it appears that Mr. Walker has

3

already taken some discovery regarding the advice-of-counsel defense (e.g., depositions). If Mr.

4

Walker feels that additional discovery is needed in order to properly respond to the advice-of-

5

counsel defense, the Court is open to discovery on this subject matter alone extending beyond the

6

October 8 deadline. The Court expects the parties to meet and confer regarding any discovery

7

extending beyond the October 8 deadline.

8

This order disposes of Docket No. 69.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

13
14

Dated: September 29, 2015
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2