Hayes v. Nettles et al
Filing
83
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - Defendants Motion to Amend Admissions by Default (Dkt. 80 ) is GRANTED. Signed by Judge David C. Nye. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jd)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
MICHAEL T. HAYES,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00534-DCN
Plaintiff,
v.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
RACHEL NETTLES, MICHAEL
MONTGOMERY, CHARLES
JOHANNESSEN, AND FELIX DIAZ,
Defendants.
I. INTRODUCTION
Pending before the Court is Defendants Rachel Nettles, Michael Montgomery,
Charles Johannessen, and Felix Diaz’s (collectively “Defendants”) Motion to Amend
Admissions by Default. Dkt. 80. Having reviewed the record and briefs, the Court finds
that the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented. Accordingly, in the interest of
avoiding further delay, and because the Court finds that the decisional process would not
be significantly aided by oral argument, the Court will decide the motion without oral
argument. Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(1)(B). For reasons set forth below, the Court
GRANTS Defendants’ Motion.
II. BACKGROUND
Hayes filed his pro se original complaint on December 12, 2016. Dkt. 1. After an
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1
initial review, the Court permitted Hayes to proceed with some of his claims on March 6,
2017. Dkt 11.
Defendants then filed a motion to dismiss the case on May 4, 2017, arguing that
some or all of Hayes’ claims were barred by the doctrine in Heck v. Humphry, 512 U.S.
477 (1994). Dkt. 17. On October 11, 2017, the Court denied that motion (Dkt. 34) and set
a scheduling order a few days later (Dkt. 35). Pursuant to that scheduling order, discovery
was to close on April 11, 2018, and the dispositive motion deadline was May 9, 2018.
On December 19, 2017, Hayes filed a motion to amend his complaint to add
additional defendants and additional claims. Dkt. 38. On May 9, 2018, Defendants filed a
motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of Hayes’ original complaint. Dkt. 60.
On September 27, 2018, the Court granted Hayes’ motion to amend his complaint and
dismissed Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as moot. Dkt. 69. On March 26,
2019, the Court reviewed the amended complaint and permitted Hayes to proceed against
one additional defendant (Felix Diaz) and on one additional claim (due process). Dkt. 70.
Hayes subsequently filed a motion to reopen discovery related to the new claim on
April 10, 2019. Dkt. 71. Defendants’ counsel received a letter from Hayes containing
discovery requests on August 12, 2019. Two days later, on August 14, 2019, the Court
granted Hayes’ motion to reopen discovery and entered a new scheduling order. Dkt. 78.
Defendants failed to answer Hayes’ requests for admission within 30 days of the
date that discovery was reopened. On October 7, 2019, Defendants’ counsel received a
follow-up letter from Hayes asking for responses. On November 5, 2019, Defendants filed
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2
the pending motion to amend their admissions. Dkt. 80. Hayes never responded to
Defendants’ motion to amend admissions.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
When a party fails to timely respond to requests for admissions, those requests are
automatically deemed admitted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 36(a). “Any matter admitted
under this rule is conclusively established unless the Court on motion permits withdrawal
or amendment of the admission.” Id. The Court has discretion to grant relief from an
admission made under Rule 36(a) if (1) “it would promote the presentation of the merits of
the action” and (2) “the party who obtained the admission fails to satisfy the court that
withdrawal or amendment will prejudice that party in maintaining the action or defense on
the merits.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b); Conlon v. United States, 474 F.3d 616, 621 (9th Cir.
2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
“The first half of the test in Rule 36(b) is satisfied when upholding the admission
would practically eliminate any presentation of the merits of the case.” Hadley v. United
States, 45 F.3d 1345, 1348 (9th Cir. 1995). Under the second half of the Rule 36(b) test,
“[t]he party relying on the deemed admission has the burden of proving prejudice.” Conlon,
474 F.3d at 622. “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.” Hadley, 45 F.3d at 1348, (quoting
Brook Village N. Assocs. v. General Elec. Co., 686 F.2d 66, 70 (1st Cir. 1982)).
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3
IV. DISCUSSION
Defendants seek to amend five admissions made by default. Defendants state that
their failure to respond to the requests was the result of clerical oversight; their counsel
reportedly failed to calendar a deadline 30 days from when the discovery date was reopened
on August 14, 2019, and only realized the mistake on October 7, 2019, when Defendants
received a letter from Hayes asking for responses. Dkt. 80-1, at 4. Defendants argue that
their motion “should be granted because (1) amendment will promote the presentation of
the merits, and (2) amendment will not prejudice Mr. Hayes.” Dkt. 80-1, at 2.
Hayes failed to respond to Defendants’ motion. According to District Local Rule of
Civil Procedure 7.1(e), unless the motion was brought under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56, “if an adverse party fails to timely file any response documents required to
be filed under this rule, such failure may be deemed to constitute a consent to the sustaining
of said pleading or the granting of said motion or other application.” Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ.
R. 7.1(e).
Here, Defendants brought a motion under Rule 36. Hayes, as the adverse party,
failed to timely file any response. The Court deems such unresponsiveness as consent to
granting Defendants’ Motion. Accordingly, the Court will review the merits of Defendants’
motion but will treat it as if it was uncontested.
A. Presentation on the Merits of the Action
The first prong of the test essentially asks whether allowing withdrawal or
amendment of an admission will aid in the resolution of the case on the merits. Gallegos v.
City of Los Angeles, 308 F.3d 987, 993 (9th Cir. 2002). Defendants’ admissions are either
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4
admissions that would prove their legal liability or are contradicted by Defendants’ own
arguments made prior to service of the request and by Hayes’ own pleadings. Here,
allowing Defendants to amend their admission would aid in the resolution of this case on
the merits.
B. Prejudice of Amendment in Maintaining the Action or Defense on the Merits
“The party who obtained the admission has the burden of proving that withdrawal
of the admission would prejudice the party’s case.” Hadley v. United States, 45 F.3d 1345,
1348 (9th Cir. 1995). “When undertaking a prejudice inquiry under Rule 36(b), district
courts should focus on the prejudice that the nonmoving party would suffer at trial.”
Conlon, 474 F.3d at 623. See Sonoda v. Cabrera, 255 F.3d 1035, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 2001)
(holding, without further analysis, that the district court did not abuse its discretion by
granting the Rule 36(b) motion to withdraw deemed admissions because the motion was
made before trial and the nonmoving party would not have been hindered in presenting its
evidence); Hadley, 45 F.3d at 1348 (focusing the prejudice inquiry on the unavailability of
key witnesses and a sudden need to obtain evidence). However, when the motion is made
during discovery, amendment or withdrawal of admissions is generally considered an
inconvenience rather than a prejudice. Hadley, 45 F.3d at 1348.
Hayes failed to respond to Defendants’ motion to amend, so he has not carried his
burden of proving that withdrawal of the admissions would prejudice his case. Even if
Hayes had not implicitly consented to the motion, Defendants’ motion is made during
discovery, so allowing amendment or withdrawal of admissions is inconvenient rather than
prejudicial.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5
V. ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1.
Defendants’ Motion to Amend Admissions by Default (Dkt. 80) is
GRANTED.
DATED: January 7, 2020
_________________________
David C. Nye
Chief U.S. District Court Judge
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 6
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?