Willis et al v. Buffalo Pumps, Inc. et al

Filing 207

ORDER Granting 183 Motion to Have Admissions Withdrawn and/or Amended. The Court further Orders that discovery be re-opened for sixty (60) days as of the date of this order solely for discovery related to the admissions at issue, and refers the matter to Magistrate Judge Bartick to re-set the dates in the current scheduling order (ECF No. 179 ) as needed. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 4/4/2013. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rlu)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

DONALD WILLIS and VIOLA WILLIS,

10

Case No. 12cv744-BTM-DHB

Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
HAVE ADMISSIONS WITHDRAWN
AND/OR AMENDED

v.
11
12
13

BUFFALO PUMPS, INC., et al.
Defendants.

14
On December 31, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion to withdraw or amend admissions
15
under Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(b) (ECF No. 183). For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS
16
Plaintiffs’ motion to withdraw or amend admissions. The Court also ORDERS that discovery
17
be re-opened for sixty (60) days as of the date of this order solely for discovery related to the
18
admissions at issue, and refers the matter to Magistrate Judge Bartick to re-set the dates
19
in the current scheduling order (ECF No. 179) as needed.
20
21
I. DISCUSSION
22
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(b), “the court may permit withdrawal or
23
amendment [of an admission] [1] if it would promote the presentation of the merits of the
24
action and [2] if the court is not persuaded that it would prejudice the requesting party in
25
maintaining or defending the action on the merits.” Rule 36(b) is permissive, and a court
26
may deny a party’s motion to withdraw or amend admissions even if both prongs are met.
27
Conlon v. United States, 474 F.3d 616, 624-25 (9th Cir. 2007). However, the court must
28
analyze both factors. See id. at 625. The court may also consider additional factors, such
1

12cv744-BTM-DHB

1

as whether the moving party can show good cause for the delay or has a strong case on the

2

merits, but the two factors enumerated in the rule are “central to the analysis.” Id.

3

Defendant John Crane Inc. (“JCI”) served written discovery, including Requests for

4

Admission, on October 24, 2012. According to the declaration proffered by Plaintiffs, they

5

responded to JCI’s written discovery on November 26, 2012, but failed to serve responses

6

to the Requests for Admissions. See Decl. of Kenneth O. Taylor III (“Taylor Decl.”) (ECF No.

7

183-2), ¶ 3. Mr. Taylor further states in his declaration that the attorney managing the case

8

left the firm shortly thereafter, and that no one noticed the oversight until counsel for JCI

9

called them and informed them that the responses were overdue and would be deemed

10

admitted. Id. at ¶¶4-5. He alleges that he contacted JCI’s counsel on December 24, 2012

11

to seek a stipulation for more time to respond to the Requests for Admissions, defense

12

counsel declined two days later, and so Plaintiffs filed the present motion. JCI does not

13

appear to dispute any of this.

14
15

a.

Presentation of the Merits

16

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

17

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

18

622 (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Hadley v. United States, 45 F.3d 1345, 1348 (9th

19

Cir. 1995)). The requests for admissions effectively ask Plaintiffs to concede their case. For

20

instance, the first Request for Admission is, “Please admit that YOU did not inhale any

21

asbestos fibers from any product placed into the stream of commerce by JCI.” See Ex. A

22

to Taylor Decl. Therefore, the Court finds that upholding the admissions would practically

23

eliminate any presentation of the merits of the case.

24
25

b.

Prejudice to the Nonmoving Party

26

The second prong of the Rule 36(b) test is whether withdrawing or amending the

27

admissions would prejudice the nonmoving party in maintaining or defending the action on

28

the merits.
2

12cv744-BTM-DHB

1

The prejudice contemplated by Rule 36(b) is not simply that the
party who obtained the admission will now have to convince the
factfinder of its truth. Rather, it relates to the difficulty a party
may face in proving its case, e.g., caused by the unavailability of
key witnesses, because of the sudden need to obtain evidence
with respect to the questions previously deemed admitted.

2
3
4

Id. at 622 (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Hadley, 45 F.3d at 1348). The party relying
5
on the admissions has the burden of proving prejudice. Id.
6
JCI argues that it is prejudiced because fact discovery closed on November 30, 2012,
7
six days after Plaintiffs’ responses were due, and that it has relied on these admissions in
8
preparing its expert witnesses. The Court finds this insufficient to meet JCI’s burden of
9
demonstrating prejudice. JCI had the opportunity to depose Plaintiffs, and JCI does not
10
indicate what specific additional discovery it would have engaged in had the matters not
11
been deemed admitted. Furthermore, JCI deposed Plaintiffs before the Requests for
12
Admissions were even served, so JCI could not have relied on the admissions in taking the
13
depositions.

Therefore, the Court finds that JCI would not be prejudiced were the

14
admissions to be withdrawn and/or amended.
15
16
c.

Other Considerations

17
As noted above, the Court may also consider other factors, such as whether Plaintiffs
18
can show good cause for the delay. Although the Court declines to make a specific finding
19
as to whether a personnel shift constitutes good cause, it notes that Rule 36(b) “seeks to
20
serve two important goals: truth-seeking in litigation and efficiency in dispensing justice.”
21
Conlon, 474 F.3d at 622. While the Court strongly admonishes Plaintiffs’ counsel to be more
22
careful in the future, to uphold the admissions would circumvent litigation’s goal of getting
23
at the truth and would not substantially further the goal of efficiency.
24
JCI also argues that the Court should not consider Plaintiffs’ motion because they
25
filed it in violation of Local Rule 26.1, which requires the parties to meet and confer
26
concerning disputed issues prior to filing motions regarding discovery. It is questionable
27
whether the meet-and-confer occurred.

However, while the Court once again warns

28
Plaintiffs’ counsel to tread carefully in the future, the Court finds that it would only
3

12cv744-BTM-DHB

1

unnecessarily increase the expense of this litigation to require Plaintiffs to comply now.

2

Therefore, since Plaintiffs meet both prongs of Rule 36(b)’s test, the Court GRANTS

3

Plaintiffs’ motion to withdraw and/or amend admissions.

4
5

II. CONCLUSION

6

For the reasons above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to withdraw and/or

7

amend admissions (ECF No. 183). The Court further ORDERS that discovery be re-opened

8

for sixty (60) days as of the date of this order solely for discovery related to the admissions

9

at issue, and refers the matter to Magistrate Judge Bartick to re-set the dates in the current

10

scheduling order (ECF No. 179) as needed.

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

DATED: April 4, 2013

15
16

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge
United States District Court

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

12cv744-BTM-DHB