Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02747/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02747-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332in Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

1 

15cv2747-W-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PLUM HEALTHCARE GROUP, 

LLC, et al., 

 Plaintiffs,

v. 

ONE BEACON PROFESSIONAL 

INSURANCE, et al., 

 Defendants.

 Case No.: 15cv2747-W-MDD 

ORDER GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

AMEND ADMISSIONS 

[ECF NO. 51] 

Before this Court is Defendants’ Motion to Withdraw and Amend 

Deemed Admissions filed on April 28, 2017. (ECF No. 51). Plaintiffs filed 

their opposition on May 17, 2017. (ECF No. 56). Defendants filed their reply 

on May 25, 2017. (ECF No. 57). As provided herein, Defendants’ motion is 

GRANTED. Defendants may withdraw their previously deemed admissions 

and respond to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions within fourteen (14) days of 

the entry of this Order. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

 Rule 36, Fed. R. Civ. P., governs requests for admissions. The Rule 

allows for a party to request that another party admit the truth of specific 

facts, application of law to fact, opinions about either, and the genuineness of 

certain documents. Rule 36(a)(1). A party receiving a request for admission 

Case 3:15-cv-02747-W-MDD Document 60 Filed 05/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

15cv2747-W-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

must answer within 30 days or the matter is deemed admitted. Rule 36(a)(3). 

Once the matter is admitted under the Rule, a court may allow the admission 

to be withdrawn or amended upon motion. Rule 36(b). The Rule provides 

that 

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. 

Rule 36(b). 

DISCUSSION 

This unfortunate situation derives from the failure of Defendants’ 

former attorney, Matthew Elstein, to adequately and competently represent 

his clients. Once Mr. Elstein’s negligence and prevarications became known, 

Defendants obtained new counsel who described Mr. Elstein’s conduct as 

“grossly negligent” in seeking relief from the Scheduling Order in this case. 

(See ECF No. 39-1 at 4:2-41). Specifically, Defendants alleged that Mr. 

Elstein: 

1) led Defendants to believe that [Elstein] would file a motion to 

dismiss Plaintiff’s claims, but never did; 

2) did not inform Defendants that Plaintiffs filed a motion for 

summary adjudication; 

3) missed the expert disclosure deadlines; 

4) misled Defendants that the expert disclosure deadlines had been 

extended when they had not; and, 

5) misled Defendants that the time to take percipient and expert 

witness depositions had been extended when it had not. 

 

1 The Court will refer to ECF pagination throughout, rather than original pagination. 

Case 3:15-cv-02747-W-MDD Document 60 Filed 05/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

15cv2747-W-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

(Id.). It also appears that Mr. Elstein failed to respond to Plaintiff’s second 

set of interrogatories. (ECF No. 57-2). The issue in the instant motion 

concerns whether or not Mr. Elstein responded to Plaintiff’s requests for 

admissions and, regardless, whether Defendants should be given leave to 

withdraw and amend deemed admissions. 

 Mr. Elstein declares that he placed the response to Plaintiff’s request 

for admissions in the mail room at his former firm. (ECF No. 48-2). 

Defendants argue, based upon Mr. Elstein’s Declaration, that the 

presumption of receipt applies and has not been overcome. (ECF No. 51-1 at 

4). The Court finds that Mr. Elstein is not credible and will not base its 

ruling on Mr. Elstein’s statements. 

 The issue, therefore, is simply whether allowing the withdrawal and 

amendment would “promote the presentation of the merits of the action” and 

the extent to which Plaintiff would be prejudiced. See Rule 36(b), Fed. R. Civ. 

P. The matters deemed admitted are quite damaging to Defendants; for 

example, Request for Admission No. 8 asks Defendants to admit that they 

should have provided a legal defense to Plaintiff in the lawsuit causing this 

dispute. (ECF No. 48-2 at 9-10). That is the ultimate issue in this lawsuit. 

There seems little question, therefore, that allowing withdrawal and 

amendment would promote the presentation of the merits. The question then 

is the extent of the prejudice to Plaintiff if the admissions are withdrawn and 

amended. 

 Plaintiff has relied on the deemed admissions in its response to 

Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment. (See ECF No. 47 at 12-

13). Plaintiff also responded to the merits of the matters that it asserts are 

deemed admitted. (ECF No. 47). Although some prejudice flows to Plaintiff, 

the Court finds that it would be fundamentally unfair to Defendants to have 

Case 3:15-cv-02747-W-MDD Document 60 Filed 05/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

15cv2747-W-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

the deemed admissions stand under these circumstances. Although it is 

correct, as this Court previously has stated in this case, that a client 

ordinarily is responsible for his counsel’s neglectful or negligent acts, here the 

consequences to Defendants are severe enough to overcome any prejudice to 

Plaintiff. (See ECF No. 50 at 4). 

CONCLUSION 

 Defendants’ motion to withdraw and amend deemed admissions is 

GRANTED. Defendants may withdraw their previously deemed admissions 

and respond to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions within fourteen (14) days of 

the entry of this Order.

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 26, 2017

Case 3:15-cv-02747-W-MDD Document 60 Filed 05/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4