Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

28

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

PIOTR J. GARDIAS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY,

Defendant. /

No. C04-04086 HRL

Consolidated With: C04-04768 HRL

C05-01242 HRL

C05-01833 HRL

C06-04695 HRL

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM MATTER

DEEMED ADMITTED

[Re: Docket No. 203]

Defendant moves for an order for relief from matter deemed admitted. Plaintiff opposed

the motion. Having considered the moving and responding papers, as well as the arguments

presented at the August 7, 2007 hearing, the court grants the motion.

This is a consolidated action for alleged employment discrimination filed pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 2000e-5. Plaintiff is employed by San Jose State University. He claims that defendant

(a) failed to promote him on the basis of his age and national origin; (b) retaliated against him

for filing employment complaints; and (c) discriminated against him on the basis of an alleged

disability.

Plaintiff says that he served a request for admission (“RFA”) on defendant in September

2006. On a prior motion, he submitted to the court a proof of service indicating that

*E-FILED: 8.8.2007*

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 256 Filed 08/08/07 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

28

2

service was, in fact, effected on or about September 6, 2006. (See Docket No. 189). 

Defendant’s response admittedly was not served until around November 27, 2006, and plaintiff

argues that the failure to timely respond to the RFA resulted in automatic admission of the

matter requested. Defendant contends that either plaintiff’s RFA was never properly served on

defense counsel’s office, or, if there was a proper service when plaintiff says, that copy was

misplaced. This court accepts plaintiff’s assertion that the RFA properly was served. 

Nonetheless, it concludes that defendant is entitled to have any deemed admission withdrawn.

When a party fails to timely respond to requests for admission, the matters requested are

automatically deemed admitted. See FED.R.CIV.P. 36(a) (“The matter is admitted unless, within

30 days after service of the request, or within such shorter or longer time as the court may allow

or as the parties may agree to in writing . . . the party to whom the request is directed serves

upon the party requesting the admission a written answer or objection addressed to the matter,

signed by the party or by the party’s attorney.”). “Any matter admitted under this rule is

conclusively established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the

admission.” FED.R.CIV.P. 36(b).

Withdrawal or amendment of the admissions may be permitted where (1) the

presentation of the merits of the action will be furthered by the withdrawal; and (2) withdrawal

will not prejudice the party who obtained the admission in maintaining the action or defense on

the merits. FED.R.CIV.P. 36(b). “[A] district court must specifically consider both factors

under the rule before deciding a motion to withdraw or amend admissions.” Conlon v. United

States, 474 F.3d 616, 622 (9th Cir. 2007).

“‘The first half of the test in Rule 36(b) is satisfied when upholding the admissions

would practically eliminate any presentation of the merits of the case.’” Conlon, 474 F.3d at

622 (quoting Hadley v. United States, 45 F.3d 1345, 1348 (9th Cir. 1995)). Here, the admission

at issue reportedly concerns whether defendant submitted all job description information for a

“Construction Coordinator” position to the EEOC. Plaintiff contends that defendant failed to do

so and, therefore, “falsifi[ed] criteria by Defendant to pro[ve] U.S. EEOC that chosen applicant

was qualified for the position Construction Coordinator.” (See Docket No. 172). According to

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 256 Filed 08/08/07 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

28

1 Plaintiff reiterated this sentiment in a one-page response which was filed on

the date of the motion hearing. It is not clear whether this filing was made shortly before or

after the motion was heard. Either way, briefing on defendant’s motion closed several weeks

ago, and plaintiff’s August 7, 2007 filing was improper.

3

defendant, its records show that all information was submitted to the EEOC. It is not readily

apparent that the deemed admission is a key component to the merits of plaintiff’s case. 

Nevertheless, insofar as the admission bears upon defendant’s veracity and its conduct with

respect to plaintiff, the court finds that permitting withdrawal will further the presentation of the

merits.

Plaintiff has the burden of establishing that he will be prejudiced if the admissions are

withdrawn. See Conlon, 474 F.3d at 622 (“The party relying on the deemed admission has the

burden of proving prejudice.”). “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.’” 

Hadley, 45 F.3d at 1348 (quoting Brook Village North Associates v. Gen. Elec. Co., 686 F.2d

66, 70 (1st Cir. 1982)). “‘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.” Id. “Courts are more

likely to find prejudice when the motion for withdrawal is made in the middle of trial.” Hadley,

45 F.3d at 1348.

In the instant case, discovery remains open, and trial is not set to begin for another seven

months. Moreover, there is no indication that plaintiff will be prejudiced if the deemed

admission is withdrawn. At oral argument, plaintiff seemed to suggest that he has been, or

would be, prejudiced in his efforts to take discovery.1

 However, he was not able to say how his

efforts to take discovery have been (or would be) impeded. Nor has he shown how he has been

prejudiced, if at all, in his ability to maintain this action on the merits. In any event, it seems

that plaintiff was on notice soon after the service of defendant’s belated response in November

2006 that defendant contended that his RFA was not properly served (and that any lateness in

the service of its response therefore should be excused). Further, even assuming there was

some discovery plaintiff feels is lacking (and on the record presented, there appears to be none),

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 256 Filed 08/08/07 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

28

4

the Ninth Circuit has declined to conclude that “a lack of discovery, without more, constitutes

prejudice.” Conlon, 474 F.3d at 624. Accordingly, this court concludes that the second prong

of the Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b) test is also satisfied.

The court is mindful that it may nonetheless exercise its discretion to deny withdrawal

even where the two-pronged test is satisfied. See Conlon, 474 F.3d at 621 (“Rule 36(b) is

permissive, not mandatory, with respect to the withdrawal of admissions.”). However, since the

court finds that there has been no prejudice to plaintiff, it will grant the motion to withdraw the

deemed admission.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT defendant’s motion for relief from

matter deemed admitted is GRANTED.

Dated: ________________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

August 8, 2007

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 256 Filed 08/08/07 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

28

5

5:04-cv-4086 A copy of this document will be mailed to:

Piotr J. Gardias 

72 Floyd Street

San Jose, CA 95110 

Plaintiff (Pro Se)

Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

Mary Susan Cain-Simon Mary.CainSimon@doj.ca.gov, David.Moss@doj.ca.gov 

Fiel D. Tigno fiel.tigno@doj.ca.gov

Counsel for Defendant

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 256 Filed 08/08/07 Page 5 of 5