Martinez v. Albright et al

Filing 38

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: Martinez's Motion to Withdraw Admissions (Dkt. 31 ) is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART as outlined above. 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 (ac)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
MICHAEL ANDREW MARTINEZ,
Case No. 4:23-cv-00211-DCN
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
SAGE ALBRIGHT, BRANDON
ANDERSON, and the CITY OF IDAHO
FALLS,
Defendants.

I. INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is Plaintiff Michael Martinez’s Motion to Withdraw Admissions.
Dkt. 31. Defendants Sage Albright, Brandon Anderson, and the City of Idaho Falls
(collectively “Defendants”) opposed the motion. Dkt. 32. Martinez did not reply.
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 the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral
argument, the Court will address the motion without oral argument. Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ.
R. 7.1(d)(1)(B). Upon review, and for the reasons outlined below, Martinez’s Motion is
GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART.
II. BACKGROUND
On May 17, 2023, Martinez filed his Complaint, alleging five causes of action. See
generally Dkt. 4. Both parties filed early motions for summary judgment. Dkts. 9, 12. The

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

Court ultimately denied those motions, indicating discovery needed to take place before it
could rule on the questions presented. See generally Dkt. 24. The Court then approved a
new scheduling order. Dkt. 30. That order was entered on May 31, 2024. Id.
A week later, on June 6, 2024, Defendants served Plaintiff via email with
“Defendants’ First Set of Discovery to Plaintiff.” Dkt. 31-1, at 6–14. Consistent with the
rules, Defendants told Martinez he had 30 days to respond. Id. at 6. See also Fed. R. Civ.
P. 33(b)(2); 34(b)(2)(A); 36(a)(3). However, July 8, 2024—the due date for responses—
came and went without any communication from Martinez.
On August 2, 2024, counsel for Defendants emailed counsel for Martinez, noting
the responses were overdue.1 Martinez’s counsel responded that he was out of town but
would look into the matter and reach out the following day. Id. at 21. The following day
came and went without any communication from Martinez’s counsel. Six days later, on
August 8, 2024, counsel for Defendants sent a follow-up email. Id. at 20. Martinez’s
counsel did not respond.
On August 12, 2024, defense counsel sent another inquiry. Id. Martinez’s counsel
responded on August 13, 2024, that he had been out of town and would return in a “couple
of days.” Id. at 19. As part of this email exchange, Martinez’s counsel asked for a 14-day
extension of time to respond to Defendants’ discovery requests. Id. The Defense counsel
who had been emailing with Martinez’s counsel noted he was not authorized to approve or

1

Martinez’s counsel claims this is the first time he became aware Defendants had even sent discovery
requests because Defendants did not copy his paralegal on their original email. However, as explained
below, there is no requirement that a paralegal be copied with an email that went to the lead attorney’s
email address.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

reject such a request and that Martinez’s counsel would need to speak with more senior
defense counsel. Id. at 18.
Another ten days passed.
On August 23, 2024, Defense counsel contacted Martinez’s counsel again, noted he
still had not seen any discovery responses, and that no request for extension had been
sought with senior defense counsel. Id. at 18. Martinez’s counsel responded that, “because
you are in the same firm I understood you would pass my request along,”2 and that he
would get responses over to counsel “ASAP.” Id. at 17.
Five days later, on August 28, 2024, Martinez’s counsel emailed Defendants and
indicated he had located the discovery (seeing the discovery requests for the “first time that
morning”). Id. at 16. He asked for another extension. Id. Senior Defense counsel denied
the request. Id. Notwithstanding, Martinez’s counsel prepared and served responses to
Defendants’ discovery the next day on August 29, 2024.
On September 4, 2024, Martinez filed the instant Motion to Withdraw Admissions,
asking that the Court allow him to withdraw those requests for admissions obtained by
default and accept his latent responses. Dkt. 31. Defendants object to the request on
multiple grounds.
///

2

The Court hates to get in the weeds, but Martinez’s counsel’s reasoning here does not make sense. In
response to the prior request for an extension, defense counsel stated (quoting in full): “Discovery
extensions are beyond the scope of my authority. Please discuss with Sam or Blake.” Id. at 18. There is no
indication this attorney would be passing Martinez’s counsel’s request along. Rather, he clearly indicated
Martinez’s counsel would need to discuss the request with other attorneys. It is this imprecise and
lackadaisical approach that concerns the Court.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

III. DISCUSSION
A. Form of Martinez’s Motion
First, Defendants note that Martinez’s filing does not conform with local rules. Dkt.
32, at 2. They are correct. Local Civil Rule 7.1 outlines that any motion—unless
uncontested—must be “accompanied by a separate brief . . . containing all of the reasons
and points and authorities relied upon by the moving party.” Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ. R.
7.1(b)(1).
Here, Martinez’s Motion is a single paragraph. Dkt. 31. There is no accompanying
brief. As far as any “reasons or points of authority,” the Motion itself simply states it is
based “on the grounds and for the reasons that the requested withdrawal would promote
the presentation of the merits of this action, and the defendants cannot meet their burden
of proving that withdrawal would prejudice the defendants in maintaining or defending the
action on the merits.” Dkt. 31, at 1.
Martinez’s counsel did, however, attach a three-page declaration to his Motion. Dkt.
31-1, at 1–3. Therein, in addition to outlining the relevant background and explaining why
the responses were late, counsel cites cases and makes argument. This format is not
appropriate. See United States v. Hinkson, 2005 WL 8159891, at *1 (D. Idaho Mar. 24,
2005) (explaining that “an affidavit is a voluntary declaration of facts, not an unlimited
forum for an attorney to discuss the merits of his case . . . .” (cleaned up)).
All in all, the lack of a supporting brief as required by local rule and a declaration
that goes beyond the scope and purpose of such a document is concerning to the Court and
weighs in favor of denying the relief sought.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

B. Substance of Martinez’s Motion
Beyond the organizational deficiencies in Martinez’s Motion, the Court is more
concerned with the reasons given for the delay and the apparent lack of diligence on the
part of Martinez’s counsel.
First, Martinez’s counsel claims he never knew about the discovery requests
because “unfortunately, the defendants did not copy my paralegal with the email . . . .” Dkt.
31-1, at 1. There is no rule or procedure requiring that counsel copy a paralegal when
sending discovery requests (or anything else for that matter). The Court is, of course, aware
of attorneys who ask that their paralegal or secretary be copied on communications for
organizational purposes. That is fine. But that does not absolve the attorney who is the legal
representative of the client from keeping track of the case.3
Second, the Court takes issue with Martinez’s position that Defendants “buried”
their requests for admissions in their discovery requests and that requests for admissions
are not typically included as part of discovery requests in the first place. Dkt. 31-1, at 2. To
begin, Defendants have three sections in their document which are labeled in bold and
underlined: (1) interrogatories, (2) requests for production of documents, and (3) requests
for admission. Each individual request is also bolded and underlined. See generally Dkt.
31-1, at 6–13. This can hardly qualify as being “buried.” What’s more, the Court has seen
hundreds of discovery requests during its tenure and can confirm that the inclusion of
requests for admissions in discovery requests are not as rare as Martinez suggests.

3

After all, it is a supervisory attorney’s professional responsibility to be responsible for their paralegal’s
work. Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct 5.3, Comment 2.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5

Regardless, the point is not really what was or was not included in the document, but why
Martinez’s counsel did not see the document in the first place and why it took him so long
to coordinate with Defense counsel on this important issue. Which brings the Court to its
third and final point.
The Court is not indifferent to busy schedules, family emergencies, technological
problems, or other reasonable issues that result in delays. That said, such is life. And in this
case, there were repeated attempts by Defense counsel to communicate with Martinez’s
counsel and repeated promises4 by Martinez’s counsel to look into the matter—but the
promises went unfulfilled.
The bottom line is that rules and deadlines must be followed. And while there are
times when extensions are justified5 or failures can be set aside, this does not appear to be
one of those circumstances. The sole reason Martinez’s counsel failed to respond to
Defendants’ discovery requests is because he was not diligent in checking his email.
The Court recently refused to set aside a final judgment in a case where counsel
claimed to not have had any email notice of the applicable deadline. The Court found the

4

On August 2, 2024, Martinez’s counsel said: “I will review my file and reach out to you tomorrow.” Dkt.
31-1, at 21. Six days later, he still had not reached out. On August 13, 2024, Martinez’s counsel indicated
he would not be back in town “for another couple days.” Id. at 19. Another ten days later, Martinez’s counsel
still had not reached out or responded to any discovery. And on August 23, 2024, Martinez’s counsel
indicated he would respond “ASAP.” Id. at 17. It was ultimately not until August 28, 2024—almost three
months after Defendants served the discovery on Martinez and almost two months after responses were
due—that it even appears Martinez’s counsel looked for the discovery requests.

5

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 29, parties can stipulate to different deadlines, or the Court can
order a new deadline. Parties frequently agree to different deadlines or grant each other extensions. The
Court is also aware that parties miss deadlines on occasion without consequence. These observations do
not change the outcome here today. Martinez’s counsel missed the deadline. Defendants tried to reach out
to get responses on at least four occasions, but it took almost one month of communications before they
received those responses. That they were then unwilling to grant an extension is their prerogative.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 6

evidence belied his explanation and that it was his affirmative duty to keep track of all
deadlines. See Trappett v. Clearwater Cnty., 2024 WL 1975682, at *3 (D. Idaho May 3,
2024). A similar logic applies here. Attorneys have a duty to review all emails, discovery,
deadlines, and matters associated with their cases. At the time Defendants served these
discovery requests, this case was in the middle of discovery. Depositions were being taken
and materials were changing hands. Why Martinez’s counsel chose not to read Defendant’s
email mystifies the Court. But it should not have come as a surprise that Defendants were
sending discovery requests.6
The above analysis notwithstanding, the Court must briefly review the standard for
evaluating a formal request to withdraw admissions. In the District of Idaho, “a two-part
test must be satisfied prior to permitting an admission to be withdrawn or amended: (1)
presentation of the merits of the action must be subserved, and (2) the party who obtained
the admission must not be prejudiced by the withdrawal.” Ada Cnty. Highway Dist. v.
Rhythm Eng’g, LLC, 2017 WL 1502791, at *3 (D. Idaho Apr. 25, 2017) (cleaned up).
As for the first prong, Martinez claims the Court will better reach the merits if he is
allowed to withdraw the admissions obtained by default. But this is not entirely true.
Defendants propounded eleven requests for admissions. Dkt. 31-1, at 12–13. Some are
simple factual admissions (the time of a 911 call for example); others, however, do go to

6

The Court makes the following note delicately and with respect: this is not the first time the Court has
provided guidance, correction, or mild reproval to Martinez’s counsel. The Court understands Martinez’s
counsel is a solo practitioner, but the Court is concerned counsel may need additional resources (e.g. staff)
to keep up with his caseload and duties. The Court recently had to remind Martinez’s counsel in another
matter about a scheduled call. There have been small snafus and gentle reminders in other cases as well.
The Court’s point is that Martinez’s counsel is an experienced and zealous advocate for his clients. But he
needs to stay organized in order to avoid situations like those present here (and described above).

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 7

the merits of Martinez’s causes of action. Thus, were the Court to deny Martinez’s request
outright, some of the merits-based arguments in this case would become essentially
foregone conclusions. This cuts in favor of Martinez.
As for the second prong, Defendants could likely be prejudiced if the Court allows
Martinez to withdraw the admissions at this point. Martinez filed this motion on September
9, 2024. Defendants responded on September 25, 2024. Discovery closed on October 2,
2024. Thus, were the Court to allow Martinez to withdraw his admissions at this stage,
Defendants would have no opportunity to conduct discovery on those issues. Defendants
sent these requests to Plaintiffs four months before the close of discovery. They should not
be prejudiced now because Martinez’s counsel did not exercise due care in finding and
responding to their requests. This cuts in favor of Defendants.
In weighing the completing arguments, the Court finds that, were it to deny
withdrawal of the more substantive admissions, such would thwart the resolution of this
case on the merits. See Gallegos v. City of Los Angeles, 308 F.3d 987, 993 (9th Cir. 2002).7
This is a fact-intensive case. The claims are important, and the stakes are high. That was
the whole reason the Court denied the parties’ early-filed motions for summary judgment;
it wanted discovery to flesh out these important, constitutional issues. Admissions 9, 10,
and 11 hearken to those same issues. Thus, the Court will allow these three admissions to

7

The Court reaches this conclusion because such is just and accurate. Notably, Martinez’s counsel predicted
this outcome—at least in part. See Dkt. 31-1, at 16 (Martinez’s counsel’s noting in one email that
Defendants should grant him an extension because if he had to litigate the matter, it would “most likely
result in an order granting me relief”). While Martinez’s counsel’s supposition on what the Court would do
if presented with the issue was correct, it goes without saying that attorneys should not shirk their duties
with the mindset that the Court will save them in the end.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 8

be withdrawn because not doing so make it difficult to decide the case on the merits.
In sum, the Court will DENY Martinez’s Motion as it relates to Requests for
Admissions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Those are deemed admitted. The Motion is, however,
GRANTED with respect to Admissions 9, 10, and 11. Those admissions are deemed
withdrawn.
IV. CONCLUSION
Martinez’s counsel did not file this motion correctly. And the Court is not persuaded
by Martinez’s counsel’s justifications for his belated responses. However, the Court always
strives to reach the merits of every action. But doing so here is somewhat prejudicial to
Defendants because discovery has closed, and summary judgment briefing is already
underway.8
Thus, Defendants have two options at this point. First, they could move to reopen
discovery on the limited topics raised in Requests for Admission 9, 10, and 11. The Court
would likely grant such a motion. Alternatively, if Defendants elect to simply move
forward, the Court will entertain a motion for fees related to the time spent tracking down
Martinez’s absent responses and responding to the Motion to Withdraw Admissions (Dkt.
32). Even though Defendants did not wholesale “win” this dispute, it never should have
reached this point in the first place.

8

There is, unfortunately, a discovery dispute related to that Motion as well which has held the matter
temporarily in abeyance. See Dkts. 34–37.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 9

V. ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Martinez’s Motion to Withdraw Admissions (Dkt. 31) is GRANTED in PART and
DENIED in PART as outlined above.

DATED: November 26, 2024
_________________________
David C. Nye
Chief U.S. District Court Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 10