Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02993/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02993-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL SALISBURY,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

DETECTIVE MICHAEL WARD, et

al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C06-2993 MMC (BZ)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF

RELIEF FROM ADMISSIONS

By Order dated March 26, 2007, the Honorable Maxine M.

Chesney referred all discovery disputes in this matter to me. 

By Order dated June 8, 2007, Judge Chesney directed plaintiff

to notice before me any motion for relief from admissions

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(b). Plaintiff

filed his motion for relief from admissions, and defendants

filed an opposition. For the reasons stated, I GRANT

plaintiff’s request for relief. 

The essential fact are not in dispute. On January 11,

2007, defendants served on plaintiff requests for admission,

requests for production of documents and interrogatories. 

Case 3:06-cv-02993-MMC Document 117 Filed 07/02/07 Page 1 of 7
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 On the e-mail, Hynes explained that requests for

admissions were “deemed statutorily and automatically

admitted,” and that defendant “can’t stip to the responses.” 

Hynes also suggested that plaintiff consider settling the

matter - a suggestion that Simpich claims upset him greatly. 

See Simpich Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. 4.

2 Indeed, I ultimately sanctioned plaintiff for his

failure to timely respond to the discovery requests. See

Docket No. 93.

3 Upon receipt of Simpich’s April 23 e-mail, Hynes

informed Simpich again that she would not accept the latefiled responses to the requests for admissions. Simpich Decl.

¶ 12, Exh. 6. 

2

Simpich Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. 1-A. Plaintiff’s responses to the

requested admissions were due thirty days after service. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 36(a). In e-mail exchanges occurring between

February 27 and 28, plaintiff’s counsel, William Simpich,

requested that defendants re-send their discovery requests,

explaining that the documents had been misplaced. Id. at ¶¶

4-5, Exhs. 2-3. He also requested additional time to respond

to the discovery. Id. at ¶ 5, Exh. 3. Defendants’ counsel,

Tricia Hynes, refused to stipulate to acceptance of late

responses to the requested admissions but agreed to give

plaintiff seven additional days to reply to the remaining

discovery.1

 Id. at ¶ 6, Exh. 4. 

Over the ensuing weeks, defendants pursued the completion

of discovery via a number of motions noticed before me.2

Simpich again asked defendants to stipulate to allow late

admissions responses. Hynes refused. Id. at ¶ 9. Simpich

attempted to e-mail all pending responses to Hynes on April

23.3 Inadvertently, however, Simpich e-mailed to defendants

only the response to production of documents. The remainder

Case 3:06-cv-02993-MMC Document 117 Filed 07/02/07 Page 2 of 7
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

3

was e-mailed some two weeks later. Thus, it wasn’t until

late-April or early-May that plaintiff served its responses to

defendants’ January discovery requests. See id. at ¶¶ 11-13. 

Plaintiff included substantive responses to defendants’

requests for admissions and interrogatories. See id. at ¶ 3,

Exh. 1-B.

Pending before Judge Chesney is defendants’ motion for

summary judgment. Arguing in part that he needed time to

pursue Rule 36(b) relief, and pursuant to Rule 56(f),

plaintiff was granted an extension of time to file his

opposition. See Docket No. 108. Trial in this matter has

been set for September 4, 2007. See Docket No. 33. Fact

discovery closed March 23, 2007. Id. 

When a party fails to timely respond to requests for

admission, those requests are automatically deemed admitted.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a). “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 is appropriate when

(1) presentation of the merits of the action is furthered, and

(2) the party who obtained the admission will not be

prejudiced in maintaining the action or defense on the merits. 

See 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). Rule 36(b),

however, is permissive with respect to withdrawal. Id. at

621. 

Case 3:06-cv-02993-MMC Document 117 Filed 07/02/07 Page 3 of 7
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 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, many of the admissions go directly to core

issues in the litigation, including the ultimate question of

liability. See Simpich Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. 1-A (Defendant’s

Request for Admissions), at Request No. 1 (admits that

plaintiff suffered no damages as a result of the incident);

id. at Request No. 4 (admits that plaintiff has no facts to

support his Fourth Amendment claim); id. at Request No. 5

(admits that plaintiff has no facts to support his claim based

on Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1); id. at Request No. 6 (admits that

plaintiff has no facts to support his claim that defendants

conspired to deprive him of his civil rights). Thus, the

first prong of the Rule 36(b) test is met. 

As to the second prong, defendants have the burden of

establishing that they will be prejudiced if the admissions

are withdrawn. 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.’” 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. A lack of discovery, without more,

Case 3:06-cv-02993-MMC Document 117 Filed 07/02/07 Page 4 of 7
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

does not constitute prejudice. Conlon, 474 F.3d at 624. 

Prejudice is more likely to be found where the motion for

withdrawal is made during trial or when a trial is imminent. 

See Conlon, 474 F.3d at 624; Hadley, 45 F.3d at 1348.

Defendants complain that plaintiff inexplicably waited

several months before seeking relief from his admissions, and

that the delay has substantially prejudiced their case. In

particular, defendants aver that their summary judgment motion

relies heavily on the admissions; that they did not take

“extensive discovery” on the admitted matters; and that

granting the plaintiff’s motion would likely require reopening fact discovery and reassessment by their experts at

great cost to defendants. Defendants, however, fail to point

to specific evidence or testimony that is now inaccessible. 

Simply because defendants may have to reassess their motion

for summary judgment or their experts’ opinions does not

demonstrate that they will be unduly prejudiced in proving up

their case on the merits. 

Moreover, defendants have known at least from the time

they received plaintiff’s interrogatory answers that each of

the five contested admissions would be denied. For example,

defendants’ Interrogatory No. 8 asked plaintiff to describe

his damages, which he did in his answer. See Simpich’s Decl.

¶ 3, Exh. 1-B. At the same time as defendants propounded this

interrogatory, they requested plaintiff to “admit that you

suffered no damages as a result of the incident.” See id. at

Request for Admission No. 1. From the record before me, the

court wonders for what proper purpose consistent with Rule 1,

Case 3:06-cv-02993-MMC Document 117 Filed 07/02/07 Page 5 of 7
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

6

defendants propounded this request for admission before the

interrogatory was answered. In any event, they certainly knew

that plaintiff claimed he was damaged. See also First Amended

Complaint for Damages (Docket No. 49), at 8 (describing

damages suffered by plaintiff). It likewise appears that

plaintiff’s interrogatory answers make clear that Requests for

Admissions No. 2, 4, 5, and 6 would be denied. 

Had defendants propounded their Requests for Admission 

after the interrogatories had been answered, without further

explanation I would likely have deemed many of them frivolous,

oppressive and sanctionable under Rule 37. For purposes of

this motion, I find that the defendants have not established

that they were prejudiced by the failure to receive timely

responses to the Requests for Admission in dispute.

It is difficult to justify plaintiff’s counsel’s dilatory

approach to responding to defendants’ discovery, a fact which

the court has noted on earlier occasions. At times, I

condition an order granting a party relief from admissions on

the payment to the other party of its attorney’s fees incurred

in opposing the motion. I will not do so here because I do

not want to encourage the use of requests for admission as

defense counsel has used them. 

The matters deemed admitted go directly to the core of

plaintiff’s case. Related discovery demonstrates that relief

from the admissions will further presentation of the merits of

the case. Defendants have failed to establish the prejudicial

impact of the withdrawal of the admissions. For these

reasons, and for those discussed above, plaintiff’s motion is

Case 3:06-cv-02993-MMC Document 117 Filed 07/02/07 Page 6 of 7
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

7

GRANTED. His automatic admissions are withdrawn, and his

late-filed responses are deemed operative. 

Dated: July 2, 2007

 Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\SALISBURY\RELIEF.ADMISSIONS.ORDER.wpd

Case 3:06-cv-02993-MMC Document 117 Filed 07/02/07 Page 7 of 7