Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01978/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01978-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

10cv1978-JLS (RBB) 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAWANTA J. LAMBERT, 

Plaintiff,

v.

J. MARTINSON; et al., 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 10cv1978-JLS (RBB) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

INVALIDATE [ECF NO. 77] AND 

GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL 

DISCOVERY AND DEEM 

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 

ADMITTED [ECF NO. 84] 

 Plaintiff Jawanta J. Lambert (“Lambert”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis, submitted a “Motion to Invalidate Defendant J. Martinson’s Request for 

Production of Documents, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for 

Admissions, Set One, for Failure to Properly Serve Plaintiff” (the “Motion to 

Invalidate”), which was filed nunc pro tunc to September 28, 2015 [ECF Nos. 7, 77]. On 

October 6, 2015, Defendant J. Martinson (“Martinson”) filed an “Opposition to Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Invalidate Discovery” (the “Opposition”) with a declaration of Gabrielle Nield 

and several exhibits [ECF No. 78]. Lambert filed a Reply along with an exhibit on 

October 26, 2015 [ECF No. 80]. On December 9, 2015, Martinson filed a “Motion to 

Compel Discovery and Deem Requests for Admission Admitted” (the “Motion to 

Compel”) with a declaration of Gabrielle Nield and multiple exhibits [ECF No. 84]. 

Neither an opposition to nor a reply in support of the Motion to Compel was filed. 

Case 3:10-cv-01978-JLS-RBB Document 93 Filed 02/03/16 Page 1 of 12
2

10cv1978-JLS (RBB) 

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

 For the reasons discussed below, the Motion to Invalidate [ECF No. 77] is 

DENIED and the Motion to Compel [ECF No. 84] is GRANTED.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

The events giving rise to this lawsuit took place while Plaintiff was incarcerated at 

Centinela State Prison. (Second Am. Compl. 1, ECF No. 63.)1

 Lambert contends that 

while leaving his cell on April 21, 2009, he realized that he had forgotten his 

identification card. (Id. at 3.) After retrieving his identification from his cell, Plaintiff 

alleges that he “encountered Defendant J. Martinson who began to address Plaintiff using 

derogatory references in an abusive and contemptious [sic] manner.” (Id.) Lambert 

states that he told Defendant Martinson that his conduct was unreasonable, and then 

Plaintiff proceeded to evening meal services. (Id.)

Plaintiff asserts that when he returned from dinner, his cell had been “vandalized” 

and several items of his personal property had been removed. (Id.) Lambert told officers 

on duty about this incident, but the officers stated they knew nothing about it. (Id.) 

Plaintiff contends that “[a]t this point Martinson returned to the unit and immediately 

resumed his verbally abusive behavior[,]” claiming responsibility for raiding Lambert’s 

cell and taking his property. (Id.) Plaintiff maintains that he asked Defendant in “a nonthreatening demeanor” for a cell-search receipt for the property that was removed from 

Lambert’s cell, but the request “seemed to inflame Martinson even more.” (Id.) 

Defendant purportedly ordered that Lambert be put in handcuffs so that he could be taken 

to the program office to obtain a cell-search receipt. (Id.) Responding to this order, 

Plaintiff alleges that he “maintained compliance by standing with his back to Martinson 

and with his arms at his sides.” (Id.) Lambert contends that despite his compliance, 

Defendant used an excessive amount of physical force against him “by violently yanking 

Plaintiff’s arm without provocation in a way that caused Plaintiff to experience physical 

1 The Court will cite to documents as paginated on the electronic case filing system.

Case 3:10-cv-01978-JLS-RBB Document 93 Filed 02/03/16 Page 2 of 12
3

10cv1978-JLS (RBB) 

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

pain and to lose equilibrium and fall toward the stationary steel table that was directly in 

front of the Plaintiff.” (Id.) 

Lambert asserts that before he could recover, Martinson aggressively grabbed him 

from behind in a “bear-hug,” lifted him up, and body slammed him to the ground. (Id. at 

3-4.) Defendant then grabbed Plaintiff’s wrist and bent his “arm up his back until 

Plaintiff heard his shoulder pop and cried out in pain helplessly.” (Id. at 4.) Lambert 

states that Martinson pulled him back to his feet and then slammed him down onto a steel 

table, causing Plaintiff to strike his head. (Id.) Plaintiff was then handcuffed and again 

brought to his feet. (Id.) Once standing, Lambert maintains that he “was repeatedly 

kicked with booted feet by Defendant until Plaintiff fell to the floor dazed and in severe 

pain.” (Id.) As a result of this encounter, Lambert complains that he experienced severe 

pain in his back, shoulder, and knee, as well as emotional and mental distress. (Id.) He 

demands $500,000 in damages. (Id. at 7.) 

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

 Defendants Uribe, Calderon, Valenzuela, Sais, Foston, and Martinson moved to 

dismiss Plaintiff’s initial complaint on May 9, 2011 [ECF No. 20]. On December 7, 

2011, this Court issued a report and recommendation that Defendants’ motion to dismiss 

be granted in part and denied in part [ECF No. 29]. United States District Court Judge 

Janis L. Sammartino issued an order adopting the report and recommendation on March 

12, 2012 [ECF No. 36]. Lambert filed a motion for reconsideration of that order [ECF 

No. 38] which was denied on March 14, 2013 [ECF No. 40]. On May 21, 2014, Plaintiff 

filed his First Amended Complaint [ECF No. 46]. Defendants Uribe, Calderon, Sais, 

Foston, and Martinson moved to dismiss Lambert’s First Amended Complaint on June 4, 

2014 [ECF No. 47], and this Court issued a report and recommendation that Defendants’ 

motion be granted in part and denied in part [ECF No. 53]. Judge Sammartino adopted 

this report and recommendation on February 26, 2015 [ECF No. 61], and Plaintiff filed 

his Second Amended Complaint on April 24, 2015 [ECF No. 63]. Defendant Martinson 

answered on May 8, 2015 [ECF No. 65]. 

Case 3:10-cv-01978-JLS-RBB Document 93 Filed 02/03/16 Page 3 of 12
4

10cv1978-JLS (RBB) 

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

 On August 11, 2015, Martinson mailed seven requests for production, ten special 

interrogatories, and twenty-three requests for admissions to Lambert. (See Mot. Compel 

Attach #2 Decl. DeSantis Nield Ex. A, at 5-8, ECF No. 84; id. Ex. B, at 9-13; id. Ex. C, 

at 14-18.) On September 22, 2015, Lambert responded with what he described as a 

motion to invalidate Defendant’s discovery [ECF No. 77]. Combined with his 

Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Invalidate, Martinson filed a “Request for Extension 

of Time to File Motion to Compel” [ECF No. 78]. The Court severed this request from 

the Opposition and set a new deadline of December 9, 2015, for Defendant to file a 

motion to compel. (Mins. 1, Oct. 13, 2015, ECF No. 79.) Lambert filed his Reply in 

support of his Motion to Invalidate on October 26, 2015 [ECF No. 80], and Martinson 

filed the Motion to Compel on December 9, 2015 [ECF No. 84]. Plaintiff did not file an 

opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel. Instead, on January 4, 2016, Lambert 

served on Defendant and submitted to the Court “Plaintiff’s Responses to Requests for 

Admissions Propounded by Defendant J. Martinson (Set One); Verification in Support 

Thereof,” which was rejected for filing because discovery documents are not filed. (See 

Notice Doc. Discrepancy 1, ECF No. 90; id. Attach. #1 Pl.’s Responses 10.) 

III. LEGAL STANDARD 

It is well established that a party may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged 

matter that is relevant to any claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevant information need not be admissible at trial to be 

discoverable. Id. Relevance is construed broadly to include any matter that bears on, or 

reasonably could lead to other matters that could bear on, any issue that may be in the 

case. See Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 350–51 (1978) (footnote 

omitted) (discussing relevance to a claim or defense, although decided under 1978 

version of Rule 26 that authorized discovery relevant to the subject matter of the action 

(citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947))). Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure authorizes the propounding party to bring a motion to compel responses 

Case 3:10-cv-01978-JLS-RBB Document 93 Filed 02/03/16 Page 4 of 12
5

10cv1978-JLS (RBB) 

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

to discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). The party opposing discovery bears the burden 

of resisting disclosure. Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 292, 299 (C.D. Cal. 1992). 

IV. DISCUSSION 

A. Motion to Invalidate 

In the Motion to Invalidate, Plaintiff maintains that he was not properly served 

with Defendant’s requests for production of documents, special interrogatories, or 

requests for admissions. (Mot. Invalidate 1-2, ECF No. 77.) Specifically, Lambert 

appears to assert that the August 11, 2015 service of these requests was improper and that 

he was not actually served until September 22, 2015, when these requests were hand 

delivered to him by a correctional counselor. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff seems to contend that 

the August 11, 2015 service was improper because defense counsel never actually placed 

these requests in the mail, despite the certificate of service saying she did so. (See id. at 

2.) Lambert supposes that “[r]ather than depositing the documents with the U.S. Postal 

Service, addressed to the Plaintiff’s address on file, counsel for Defendants e-mailed the 

documents to a third party, unsealed, causing Plaintiff to go unserved, and [be] subject to 

sanctions because of it.” (Id.) Lambert asks that the Court declare service of these 

discovery requests invalid and “restore Plaintiff’s rights to raise objections to further 

request[s],” (id.) 

 Martinson responds in the Opposition that the August 11, 2015 service was proper.

(Opp’n 2, ECF No. 78.) Defendant explains that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

5, “[s]ervice was . . . complete, when Defendant mailed the discovery on August 11, 

2015. Plaintiff has provided no reason to question that the discovery was indeed sent on 

that date as set forth in the Certificate of Service.” (Id. at 3.) 

 In the Reply, Lambert contends that he “at no time received properly filed/served 

discovery requests.” (Reply 2, ECF No. 80.) He further asserts that he did not know of 

these discovery requests until he received a meet-and-confer letter from Martinson on 

September 22, 2015. (Id.) Lambert complains that “Defendants have a history of serving 

discovery requests document [sic] improperly upon plaintiff via e-mail with false 

Case 3:10-cv-01978-JLS-RBB Document 93 Filed 02/03/16 Page 5 of 12
6

10cv1978-JLS (RBB) 

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

‘certificate of service’ included[.]” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that the discovery requests 

from Defendant never came in the mail, (id. (citing id. Ex. A, at 5)), and attached a “Mail 

Card (CDCR FORM 119)” to his Reply, showing all the mail that he received and sent 

from July 14, 2015, to October 19, 2015, (see id. Ex. A, at 5.) Lambert concludes that his 

failure to respond to Martinson’s discovery requests was not his fault, asks that 

Defendant’s first set of discovery be invalidated, and seeks an order that he be allowed 

“to retain his rights to objections and to deny admissions.” (Id. at 3.) 

“[S]ervice of discovery is governed by Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure . . . .” Edeh v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, Civil No. 11–2671 (SRN/JSM),

2013 WL 1749912, at *15 (D. Minn. Apr. 23, 2013). Rule 5 has many options for 

effecting service of discovery requests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(A)-(F). Notably, 

service of a discovery request is complete by “mailing it to the person’s last known 

address--in which event service is complete upon mailing.” Id.(b)(2)(C). A discovery 

request is also properly served under Rule 5 “by . . . handing it to the person.”

Id.(b)(2)(A); see also e360 Insight v. The Spamhaus Project, 500 F.3d 594, 601 (7th Cir. 

2007) (“In-hand delivery is . . . a specifically approved method of service under the 

Rules.”).

Here, it appears that Defendant complied with Rule 5 by mailing his discovery 

requests to Plaintiff’s address of record as of August 11, 2015. (Compare Opp’n Attach 

#1 Decl. DeSantis Nield Ex. D, at 19, ECF No. 78, with Notice Change Address 1, ECF 

No. 72.) But even accepting as true Lambert’s statement that the August 11, 2015 service 

never reached him, by Plaintiff’s own admission, a third party hand delivered 

Martinson’s discovery requests to him on September 22, 2015. (See Mot. Invalidate 1, 

ECF No. 77.) This subsequent hand delivery was proper service under the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(A); e360 Insight, 500 F.3d at 601, and 

Lambert does not argue otherwise. Without more from the Plaintiff, this Court cannot 

Case 3:10-cv-01978-JLS-RBB Document 93 Filed 02/03/16 Page 6 of 12
7

10cv1978-JLS (RBB) 

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

conclude that Defendant’s discovery requests should be invalidated on the basis of 

improper service. 

Accordingly, Lambert’s Motion to Invalidate [ECF No. 77] is DENIED.

B. Motion to Compel 

In the Motion to Compel, Martinson argues that during meet-and-confer efforts 

with Plaintiff, Lambert admitted that he had not responded to the discovery requests, but 

asserted that he had not had access to a pen or paper for some time. (Mot. Compel 

Attach. #1 Mem. P. & A. 3, ECF No. 84 (citation omitted).) Defendant contends, 

however, that the litigation coordinator for the prison contradicted this assertion by 

stating that Lambert does have access to pens and paper. (Id. at 3-4, 6 (citation omitted).) 

 Plaintiff’s claims are undermined by his actions. On September 22, 2015, the same 

day Defendant’s discovery requests were hand delivered to Lambert, he completed his 

Motion to Invalidate, served it on opposing counsel, and mailed it to the Court. (See 

Mot. Invalidate 3, ECF No. 77.) Furthermore, on October 22, 2015, days before 

Plaintiff’s discovery responses were due, he mailed his Reply in Support of the Motion to 

Invalidate to opposing counsel and the Court. (See Reply 3, 6, ECF No. 80.) Lambert’s 

claim that he did not respond to discovery because he did not have a pen or paper is not 

credible.

 Martinson maintains that “[t]o date [December 9, 2015], no response to any of 

Defendant J. Martinson’s discovery requests has been received[,]” (id. at 4 (citation 

omitted)), and reiterates that service of these discovery requests was properly effected on 

August 11, 2015, (id. at 4-5.) In any event, Defendant states that “the absolute latest date 

that Plaintiff received discovery requests was September 22, 2015. More than 75 days 

have elapsed since September 22, 2015 and Plaintiff still has not made any attempt to 

respond to discovery.” (Id. at 6.) Martinson argues that Lambert’s failure to respond to 

this discovery waives any objections and results in the requests for admissions being 

admitted. (Id. at 6, 7-8.) He asks this Court to enter an order requiring Plaintiff “to (1) 

respond fully to Defendant’s interrogatories and document requests within 15 days of the 

Case 3:10-cv-01978-JLS-RBB Document 93 Filed 02/03/16 Page 7 of 12
8

10cv1978-JLS (RBB) 

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

Court’s order and (2) deem Defendant J. Martinson’s Requests for Admission admitted.” 

(Id. at 8.) As mentioned above, neither an opposition to, nor a reply in support of, the 

Motion to Compel was filed. 

1. Interrogatories and requests for production 

 The Federal Rules instruct that parties must respond to interrogatories and requests 

for production within thirty days of service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

34(b)(2)(A). When a party fails to provide any response or objection to interrogatories or 

document requests, courts deem all objections waived and grant a motion to compel. See 

Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992) 

(finding that a party who failed to timely object to interrogatories and document 

production requests waived any objections); 7 James Wm. Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal 

Practice, § 33.174[2], at 33–106, § 34.13[2][a], at 34–56 to 34–56.1 (3d ed. 2015).

As discussed above, the Court need not resolve whether the discovery requests 

were properly served on August 11, 2015. Regardless, the Court is satisfied that the inhand delivery of Defendant’s discovery requests to Lambert on September 22, 2015, was 

proper under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(A); e360 

Insight, 500 F.3d at 601. At the latest, Plaintiff was required to respond within thirty 

days of September 22, 2015. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A).

In the Motion to Compel, Martinson asserts that as of December 9, 2015, he had 

not received responses to his interrogatories or requests for production. (See Mot. 

Compel Attach. #1 Mem. P. & A. 4, ECF No. 84 (citation omitted).) Lambert did not file 

an opposition to the Motion to Compel and thus does not argue that he provided timely 

responses to the discovery requests. Because Defendant’s Motion to Compel was filed 

well past the thirty-day deadline for Lambert to respond, the Court can only conclude that 

Lambert failed to respond to this discovery in a timely manner. As a result, any 

objections to this discovery have been waived, see Richmark Corp., 959 F.2d at 1473 

(citations omitted) (“It is well established that a failure to object to discovery requests 

within the time required constitutes a waiver of any objection.”), and the Motion to 

Case 3:10-cv-01978-JLS-RBB Document 93 Filed 02/03/16 Page 8 of 12
9

10cv1978-JLS (RBB) 

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

Compel [ECF No. 84] is GRANTED as to Defendant’s interrogatories and requests for 

production.

Although the fact discovery cutoff in this case was January 25, 2016, (Case 

Management Conference Order 1, ECF No. 75), in light of the protracted delay and the 

parties cross-motions, the Court extends the discovery deadline to February 25, 2016, for 

the sole purpose of permitting Plaintiff to respond to Martinson’s interrogatories and 

requests for production. Lambert must respond to these discovery requests by this date. 

2. Requests for admissions 

 With regard to requests for admissions, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 

provides that “[a] matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served, the party 

to whom the request is directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or 

objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

36(a)(3). “No motion to establish the admissions is needed because Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 36(a) is self executing.” FTC v. Medicor, LLC., 217 F. Supp. 2d 1048, 1053 

(C.D. Cal. 2002) (citation omitted). 

 Consistent with the self-executing nature of Rule 36(a), some courts have denied as 

unnecessary motions to deem matters admitted. See Foster v. Enenmoh, No. 1:08–cv–

01849–LJO–SKO PC, 2012 WL 2872769, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 12, 2012) (“In as much 

as there is no dispute between the parties that Defendant failed to serve a timely response 

to Plaintiff’s requests for admission, the matters have been admitted and Plaintiff’s 

motion for an order to that effect is denied as unnecessary.”); Nieto v. Hodge, No. 1:10–

cv–01397 AWI JLT (PC), 2012 WL 4833398, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2012) (“Because 

there is no need for a Court to determine that the matters are admitted, the motion is 

DENIED as unnecessary.” (citing Smith v. Pac. Bell Telephone Co., Inc., 662 F. Supp. 

2d 1199, 1229 (E.D. Cal. 2009))). Other courts, however, have deemed matters admitted 

in the context of granting motions to compel. See Sarver v. City of Bakersfield, No.

1:14–cv–00141–JLT, 2015 WL 1439935, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2015) (“Defendant’s 

motion to compel discovery is GRANTED[.] . . . The requests for admissions are 

Case 3:10-cv-01978-JLS-RBB Document 93 Filed 02/03/16 Page 9 of 12
10 

10cv1978-JLS (RBB) 

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

DEEMED ADMITTED[.]”); see also Honor Plastic Indus. Co. v. Lollicup USA, Inc., 

No. 1:06cv0707 AWI DLB, 2007 WL 173772, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2007) (same).

 Here, as mentioned, Plaintiff did not dispute Defendant’s assertion that as of 

December 9, 2015, he had not responded to Martinson’s requests for admissions. (See 

Mot. Compel Attach. #1 Mem. P. & A. 4, ECF No. 84 (citation omitted).) Although 

Lambert did submit to the Court a copy of his responses to Defendant’s requests for 

admissions, these responses were served on Defendant on January 4, 2016, well past his 

thirty-day window for responding. (See Notice Doc. Discrepancy Attach #1 Pl.’s 

Responses 8, ECF No. 90.) In light of Lambert’s untimely responses, the facts sought in 

Martinson’s requests for admissions are deemed admitted as a matter of law. See U.S. ex 

rel. Kozak v. Chabad-Lubavitch Inc., No. 2:10–cv–01056–MCE–EFB, 2014 WL 

6943944, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2014) (deeming a fact admitted as a matter of law 

where a party failed to respond to a request for admissions); Honor Plastic Indus. Co., 

2007 WL 173772, at *3 (“Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admissions was served on 

August 21, 2006, making responses due on September 25, 2006. Defendant provided 

responses on November 10, 2006. Defendant’s response was untimely and the requests 

are deemed admitted pursuant to Rule 36(a).” (citing Medicor LLC., 217 F. Supp. 2d at 

1053)). Moreover, while some courts have denied motions to deem matters admitted as 

unnecessary, see Foster, 2012 WL 2872769, at *1; Nieto, 2012 WL 4833398, at *2, in the 

interest of judicial economy, this Court is more aligned with those courts that have 

granted such relief when ruling on a motion to compel. See Sarver, 2015 WL 1439935, 

at *5; Honor Plastic Indus. Co., 2007 WL 173772, at *3. 

 Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel [ECF No. 84] is GRANTED as to 

the requests for admissions. The facts sought in these requests are deemed admitted as a 

matter of law. 

 This, however, does not completely resolve the discovery dispute. The Plaintiff, a 

state prisoner, did not oppose Martinson’s Motion to Compel. But he did serve tardy 

responses to Defendant’s requests for admissions. Although the Court has determined 

Case 3:10-cv-01978-JLS-RBB Document 93 Filed 02/03/16 Page 10 of 12
11 

10cv1978-JLS (RBB) 

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

that the admissions sought by the Defendant are established, “Rule 36 [of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure] permits a court, on motion, to withdraw an admission. . . . [A] 

withdrawal or request to withdraw may be made orally or may be imputed from a party’s 

actions.” Chancellor v. City of Detroit, 454 F. Supp. 2d 645, 666 (E.D. Mich. 2006). In 

Chancellor, the plaintiff’s denials to a defendant’s requests to admit were three days late.

The court held that the “[late] denials may be deemed the functional equivalent of a 

request to withdraw.” Id.; accord Gutting v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 710 F.2d 1309, 

1313 (8th Cir. 1983); White Consol. Indus. v. Waterhouse, 158 F.R.D. 429, 432 (D. 

Minn. 1994). 

 The Court will interpret Lambert’s attempt to file tardy responses to Defendant’s 

requests for admissions as the functional equivalent of a motion to withdraw admissions, 

especially in light of his status as a pro se prisoner. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 

94 (2007) (“A document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally construed,’ . . . . (citation 

omitted)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[C]ourts must construe 

pro se pleadings liberally.”) Still, if Lambert seeks to withdraw the deemed admissions 

to Martinson’s requests for admissions, he may, on or before February 11, 2016, file a 

motion to amend or withdraw his admissions under Rule 36(b) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. Any motion should also address whether it is appropriate to extend the 

discovery cutoff to allow the withdrawal of deemed admissions and submission of 

Plaintiff’s response.

V. CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons discussed, Plaintiff’s Motion to Invalidate [ECF No. 77] is 

DENIED, and Martinson’s Motion to Compel [ECF No. 84] is GRANTED. Lambert 

must respond to Defendant’s interrogatories and requests for production by February 29, 

2016. The facts sought by Martinson in his first set of requests for admissions are 

deemed admitted. 

Case 3:10-cv-01978-JLS-RBB Document 93 Filed 02/03/16 Page 11 of 12
12 

10cv1978-JLS (RBB) 

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

 If Plaintiff seeks to withdraw the deemed admissions, on or before February 11, 

2016, and as outlined above, he may file a motion to amend or withdraw his admissions. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 3, 2016 ___________________________________

 Hon. Ruben B. Brooks 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

cc: Judge Sammartino 

 All Parties of Record 

_________________________

Case 3:10-cv-01978-JLS-RBB Document 93 Filed 02/03/16 Page 12 of 12