Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-03073/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-03073-62/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNIVERSAL TRADING & INVESTMENT

CO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 KIRITCHENKO ET AL,

Defendant. /

No. C-99-03073 MMC (EDL)

ORDER RE AMENDMENT OF

RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR

ADMISSIONS

On July 24, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion captioned “Request for Administrative Relief

Regarding Amendment of Responses to Requests for Admissions Propounded by Defendant Michael

Menko.” In it, Plaintiff asked to amend its original responses and also sought the Court’s excusal of

the tardiness of the original responses so that the Requests for Admission would not be deemed

admitted. On July 27, 2007, Defendant filed an Opposition. For the reasons stated below, the Court

denies in part Plaintiff’s motion.

Defendant served Requests for Admission on October 23, 2007. Plaintiff did not serve

responses until December 28, 2007. Under Rule 36(a), any request for admission is admitted unless,

within 30 days after service of the request (or within the time permitted by the court or as agreed by

the parties), the receiving party serves a written answer or objection that is signed by the party or its

attorney. Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a). Accordingly, on March 23, 2007, Defendant informed Plaintiff that,

due to Plaintiff’s lack of timely response, Defendant deemed the responses “admitted” pursuant to

FRCP 36(b), and it intended to move for summary judgment on the basis of the deemed admissions. 

See Ikels Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. C. In Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, Defendant

states that Defendant deems the Request for Admissions admitted because of Plaintiff’s failure to

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 1658 Filed 08/02/07 Page 1 of 3
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

serve responses within thirty days, and argues that Defendant would be prejudiced if the Court

allowed Plaintiff to withdraw the deemed admissions or serve Amended Responses.

A court has discretion to grant relief from an admission made under Rule 36(a) when 

(1) “the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved,” and (2) “the party who obtained

the admission fails to satisfy the court that withdrawal or amendment will prejudice that party in

maintaining the action or defense on the merits.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b); Conlon v. United States, 474

F.3d 616, 622 (9th Cir. 2007). These two factors should be “central to the analysis,” and “a district

court must specifically consider both factors under the rule before deciding a motion to withdraw or

amend admissions.” Id. The first factor “is satisfied when upholding the admissions would

practically eliminate any presentation of the merits of the case.” Id. The second factor focuses on

“the prejudice that the nonmoving party would suffer at trial.” Id. at 623. While the inquiry is factspecific, the Ninth Circuit has drawn certain boundaries and followed two other Courts of Appeal to

hold that “reliance on a deemed admission in preparing a summary judgment motion does not

constitute prejudice.” Id. at 624. In addition, reliance on deemed admissions in choosing not to

engage in any other discovery, without more, does not constitute prejudice. Id. For prejudice to

exist, it “must relate to the difficulty a party may face in proving its case at trial.” Id. 

Applying the Rule 36(b) factors, here, as in Conlon, “upholding the [deemed] admissions

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

622. The deemed admissions preclude Plaintiff from establishing the elements of his claims against

Defendant by conclusively refuting them. Accordingly, the first factor is satisfied. As to the second

factor, Defendant has failed to show that it would face difficulty in proving its case at trial if

Plaintiff’s deemed admissions were withdrawn and replaced with Plaintiff’s original Responses or

Amended Responses. Although Defendant may have relied on the deemed admissions for summary

judgment, that would not constitute prejudice. See Conlon, 474 F.3d at 624. Accordingly, the

second factor is satisfied. 

Rule 36(b) is permissive, not mandatory, with respect to the withdrawal of admissions. See

Asea, Inc. v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 1248 (9th Cir. 1981). The Court finds that

withdrawal is warranted in this instance. Defendant has had copies of Plaintiff’s original responses

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 1658 Filed 08/02/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

since December 28, 2006, and would not be disadvantaged by the Court now holding that the

original Responses were timely under Rule 36(a), under which a matter is deemed admitted unless

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

may allow... .” Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a) (emphasis added). 

The Rule 36(b) factors do not weigh in favor of allowing amendment of the original (tardy)

Responses, however. Although the second factor is satisfied because Defendant has failed to show

that it would be prejudiced by allowing Plaintiff to file an amendment at this late date, the first factor

fails. The proposed Amended Responses do not substantively change Plaintiff’s Responses and

therefore would not further the presentation of the merits. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(b); Conlon, 474

F.3d at 622. Accordingly, the Court does not grant Plaintiff leave to amend the original Responses. 

Id. 

Therefore, the Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiff’s original Responses to the Requests for

Admissions Propounded by Defendant Michael Menko are deemed timely and all deemed

admissions are withdrawn. No further amendment of the Responses is permitted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2007 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 1658 Filed 08/02/07 Page 3 of 3