Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02529/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02529-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Account Receivable

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THERESA UREKEW,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2529 FCD KJM

vs.

TETRA HOLDING INC., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw admissions came on regularly for hearing on June

7, 2006. Todd Murray appeared for plaintiff. William Bishop appeared for defendant. Upon

review of the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of counsel, and

good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

The court finds presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved if

withdrawal of the admissions is not permitted; as conceded by counsel at hearing, plaintiff would

not survive summary judgment on at least two of her causes of action if the motion is denied. 

Additionally, defendant will not suffer the kind of prejudice that would preclude exercise of the

court’s discretion to allow withdrawal. Plaintiff’s belated responses to requests for admission are

Case 2:04-cv-02529-FCD-KJM Document 40 Filed 06/09/06 Page 1 of 2
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

1

 The lateness in providing responses to the admission requests was occasioned by

plaintiff’s counsel’s emergency surgery in December 2005, and subsequent workload

management problems after counsel, a solo practitioner, returned to work. None of the delay

appears caused by any lack of diligence by plaintiff herself and plaintiff’s counsel has accepted

full responsibility for the lateness. 

2

not unsurprising or inconsistent when compared with her original pleadings.1 No witnesses have

been shown to be unavailable, and plaintiff was fully deposed during discovery. Moreover, when

pressed at hearing to explain how defendant’s motion for summary judgment and the opening

briefing in support thereof would have differed if defendant had received the responses to

requests for admission before the filing of the motion, defendant’s counsel indicated there would

have been no change in the framing or content of the motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b); Hadley

v. United States, 45 F.3d 1345, 1348 (9th Cir. 1995). To the extent defendant wishes to

challenge new positions and new evidence it says plaintiff has presented in response to summary

judgment, defendant will have the opportunity to do so in its reply and, if the case proceeds to

trial, in pretrial motions, trial objections and attempts to impeach plaintiff. 

For all the foregoing reasons, the motion to withdraw admissions is granted. 

DATED: June 8, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

006

urekew.oah 

Case 2:04-cv-02529-FCD-KJM Document 40 Filed 06/09/06 Page 2 of 2