Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02818/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02818-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1 

3:13-cv-02818-H-JMA 

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 

MICHAEL LEWIS, LAUREN TAYLOR, 

C.L., a minor, and B.L., a minor, by and 

through their guardian ad litem, 

Plaintiffs,

v. 

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, COUNTY 

AGENT IAN BAXTER, COUNTY 

AGENT N. QUINTEROS, COUNTY 

AGENT SUPERVISOR BENITA 

JEMISON, COUNTY AGENT ABIGAIL 

JOSEPH, COUNTY AGENT 

SUPERVISOR ANTONIA TORRES, 

COUNTY AGENT SUPERVISOR 

ALFREDO GUARDADO, COUNTY 

AGENT BROOKE GUILD, and DOES 1-

50, 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 3:13-cv-02818-H-JMA 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO WITHDRAW 

ADMISSIONS 

[Doc. No. 108] 

 

On November 27, 2013, this action was removed to Federal Court. (Doc. No. 1.) 

Plaintiff Michael Lewis (“Plaintiff”) was initially represented by counsel but moved to 

relieve his counsel and proceed pro se on December 16, 2015. (Doc. Nos. 42, 45.) The 

Court granted Plaintiff’s motion on January 8, 2016. (Doc. No. 46.) On June 17, 2016, 

Case 3:13-cv-02818-H-JMA Document 158 Filed 03/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

3:13-cv-02818-H-JMA 

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

Defendant County of San Diego (“Defendant”) served Plaintiff with Requests for 

Admissions. (Doc. No. 89.) Plaintiff failed to respond to the requests and Defendant 

moved to compel on September 19, 2016. (Id.) Plaintiff did not oppose the motion to 

compel and the Court ordered the requests be deemed admitted if Plaintiff failed to 

respond by October 14, 2016. (Doc. No. 95.) Plaintiff failed to timely respond and the 

requests were deemed admitted. 

On January 6, 2017, the last day of discovery, Plaintiff delivered a response to 

Defendant’s Requests for Admissions and on January 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to 

withdraw his admissions. (Doc. No. 108.) Defendants opposed the motion on February 

15, 2017. (Doc. No. 135.) Plaintiff replied on February 22, 2017. (Doc. No. 148.) On 

March 1, 2017, the Court heard arguments on the matter. (Doc. No. 153.) Plaintiff 

Michael Lewis was represented by Attorney Stephen Allen King and Defendants were 

represented by Attorneys David Brodie and Erica Rocio Cortez. (Id.) 

ANALYSIS 

Requests for admissions are deemed admitted unless a party responds within 30 

days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3). Admitted matters are conclusively established. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 36(b). A Court may allow a party to withdraw admitted matters if “it would 

promote the presentation of the merits of the action and if the court is not persuaded that 

it would prejudice the requesting party in maintaining or defending the action on the 

merits.” Id. The first prong of the test in Rule 36(b) is met “when upholding the 

admissions would practically eliminate any presentation of the merits of the case.” 

Conlon v. U.S., 474 F.3d 616, 622 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Hadley v. U.S., 45 F.3d 1345, 

1348 (9th Cir. 1995)). The second prong requires the party relying on the deemed 

admissions to show prejudice. Id. The prejudice must be more than simply the 

additional burden of now having to convince the factfinder of the truth of the admitted 

matters. Id. Relief under Rule 36 is discretionary, not mandatory, and is reviewed for 

abuse of discretion. Id. at 624-25. Because Defendants would be prejudiced by such a 

late withdrawal of admissions, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion. 

Case 3:13-cv-02818-H-JMA Document 158 Filed 03/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

3:13-cv-02818-H-JMA 

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

Under the operative scheduling order, discovery concluded on January 6, 2017. 

(Doc. No. 94.) If Plaintiff is now allowed to withdraw his admissions, Defendants would 

be unable to obtain additional facts needed to prove portions of their case. For example, 

Defendants’ Request for Admission No. 19 asked Plaintiff to admit he did not have a 

government-issued medical marijuana card at the time of the removal of his children. 

(Doc. No. 89-3 at 4.) Because this fact was deemed admitted, Defendant did not conduct 

further inquiry into the matter during Plaintiff’s deposition. (Doc. No. 135-2 ¶ 2.) 

Plaintiff now denies Request for Admission No. 19. Id. Because discovery has closed, 

however, Defendant is unable to seek further clarifications from Plaintiff or additional 

evidence to prove the previously admitted matter. Such difficulties in proving matters 

once thought admitted are precisely the type of prejudice addressed by Rule 36(b). 

Hadley, 45 F.3d at 1348 (“[the prejudice] relates to the difficult a party may face in 

proving its case, e.g., . . . because of the sudden need to obtain evidence with respect to 

the questions previously deemed admitted”). 

Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendants’ initial requests for admissions. Plaintiff 

also failed to respond after the Court issued an order warning the Requests for Admission 

would be deemed admitted if Plaintiff failed to respond. Plaintiff then waited until the 

last day of discovery to take action regarding the admissions, preventing Defendants from 

conducting additional discovery regarding the previously-admitted matters. After 

reviewing the record as a whole, the Court finds Defendants would be prejudiced by a 

withdrawal of Plaintiff’s admissions at this late stage in the litigation and denies 

Plaintiff’s motion. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 3, 2017 

 Hon. Marilyn L. Huff 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:13-cv-02818-H-JMA Document 158 Filed 03/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3