Lewis et al v. San Diego, County of et al

Filing 158

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 108 Motion to Withdraw Admissions. Signed by Judge Marilyn L. Huff on 3/3/2017. (fth)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

Case No.: 3:13-cv-02818-H-JMA

MICHAEL LEWIS, LAUREN TAYLOR,
C.L., a minor, and B.L., a minor, by and
through their guardian ad litem,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO WITHDRAW
ADMISSIONS

Plaintiffs,
v.

22
23

[Doc. No. 108]

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, COUNTY
AGENT IAN BAXTER, COUNTY
AGENT N. QUINTEROS, COUNTY
AGENT SUPERVISOR BENITA
JEMISON, COUNTY AGENT ABIGAIL
JOSEPH, COUNTY AGENT
SUPERVISOR ANTONIA TORRES,
COUNTY AGENT SUPERVISOR
ALFREDO GUARDADO, COUNTY
AGENT BROOKE GUILD, and DOES 150,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21

24
25

On November 27, 2013, this action was removed to Federal Court. (Doc. No. 1.)

26

Plaintiff Michael Lewis (“Plaintiff”) was initially represented by counsel but moved to

27

relieve his counsel and proceed pro se on December 16, 2015. (Doc. Nos. 42, 45.) The

28

Court granted Plaintiff’s motion on January 8, 2016. (Doc. No. 46.) On June 17, 2016,
1
3:13-cv-02818-H-JMA

1

Defendant County of San Diego (“Defendant”) served Plaintiff with Requests for

2

Admissions. (Doc. No. 89.) Plaintiff failed to respond to the requests and Defendant

3

moved to compel on September 19, 2016. (Id.) Plaintiff did not oppose the motion to

4

compel and the Court ordered the requests be deemed admitted if Plaintiff failed to

5

respond by October 14, 2016. (Doc. No. 95.) Plaintiff failed to timely respond and the

6

requests were deemed admitted.

7

On January 6, 2017, the last day of discovery, Plaintiff delivered a response to

8

Defendant’s Requests for Admissions and on January 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to

9

withdraw his admissions. (Doc. No. 108.) Defendants opposed the motion on February

10

15, 2017. (Doc. No. 135.) Plaintiff replied on February 22, 2017. (Doc. No. 148.) On

11

March 1, 2017, the Court heard arguments on the matter. (Doc. No. 153.) Plaintiff

12

Michael Lewis was represented by Attorney Stephen Allen King and Defendants were

13

represented by Attorneys David Brodie and Erica Rocio Cortez. (Id.)

14
15

ANALYSIS
Requests for admissions are deemed admitted unless a party responds within 30

16

days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3). Admitted matters are conclusively established. Fed. R.

17

Civ. P. 36(b). A Court may allow a party to withdraw admitted matters if “it would

18

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

19

it would prejudice the requesting party in maintaining or defending the action on the

20

merits.” Id. The first prong of the test in Rule 36(b) is met “when upholding the

21

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

22

Conlon v. U.S., 474 F.3d 616, 622 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Hadley v. U.S., 45 F.3d 1345,

23

1348 (9th Cir. 1995)). The second prong requires the party relying on the deemed

24

admissions to show prejudice. Id. The prejudice must be more than simply the

25

additional burden of now having to convince the factfinder of the truth of the admitted

26

matters. Id. Relief under Rule 36 is discretionary, not mandatory, and is reviewed for

27

abuse of discretion. Id. at 624-25. Because Defendants would be prejudiced by such a

28

late withdrawal of admissions, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion.
2
3:13-cv-02818-H-JMA

1

Under the operative scheduling order, discovery concluded on January 6, 2017.

2

(Doc. No. 94.) If Plaintiff is now allowed to withdraw his admissions, Defendants would

3

be unable to obtain additional facts needed to prove portions of their case. For example,

4

Defendants’ Request for Admission No. 19 asked Plaintiff to admit he did not have a

5

government-issued medical marijuana card at the time of the removal of his children.

6

(Doc. No. 89-3 at 4.) Because this fact was deemed admitted, Defendant did not conduct

7

further inquiry into the matter during Plaintiff’s deposition. (Doc. No. 135-2 ¶ 2.)

8

Plaintiff now denies Request for Admission No. 19. Id. Because discovery has closed,

9

however, Defendant is unable to seek further clarifications from Plaintiff or additional

10

evidence to prove the previously admitted matter. Such difficulties in proving matters

11

once thought admitted are precisely the type of prejudice addressed by Rule 36(b).

12

Hadley, 45 F.3d at 1348 (“[the prejudice] relates to the difficult a party may face in

13

proving its case, e.g., . . . because of the sudden need to obtain evidence with respect to

14

the questions previously deemed admitted”).

15

Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendants’ initial requests for admissions. Plaintiff

16

also failed to respond after the Court issued an order warning the Requests for Admission

17

would be deemed admitted if Plaintiff failed to respond. Plaintiff then waited until the

18

last day of discovery to take action regarding the admissions, preventing Defendants from

19

conducting additional discovery regarding the previously-admitted matters. After

20

reviewing the record as a whole, the Court finds Defendants would be prejudiced by a

21

withdrawal of Plaintiff’s admissions at this late stage in the litigation and denies

22

Plaintiff’s motion.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 3, 2017
Hon. Marilyn L. Huff
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
3

3:13-cv-02818-H-JMA