Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04632/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04632-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID

TRANSIT DISTRICT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 WILLIAM D. SPENCER, et al.,

Defendant. /

No. C 04-04632 SI

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

BONAR’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW

DEEMED ADMISSIONS

Defendant Bruce R. Bonar (“Bonar”) and plaintiff San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District

(“BART”) have submitted letter briefs requesting the Court’s assistance in resolving a discovery dispute

involving Bonar’s deemed admissions to BART’s second set of requests for admissions (“RFA’s”).

Bonar’s responses to BART’s RFA’s were not timely served by the July 12, 2006 response deadline,

and were therefore deemed admitted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a). On July 19,

2006, Bonar attempted to serve his responses to the RFA’s, which BART refused. On August 29, 2006,

Bonar filed the motion presently before the Court to withdraw his admissions, arguing that withdrawal

is warranted under Rule 36(b) because: (1) withdrawal of the admissions will advance the merits of the

action, and (2) BART will not be substantially prejudiced by the withdrawal. For the reasons discussed

below, the Court is persuaded that withdrawal of the admissions in question is warranted. The Court

hereby GRANTS defendant’s motion to withdraw the admissions and orders that BART accept Bonar’s

tardy responses.

A. Impact of Withdrawal on the Merits of the Action

Bonar contends that because the deemed admissions pertain to RFA’s that were identical to other

Case 3:04-cv-04632-SI Document 92 Filed 09/25/06 Page 1 of 4
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

RFA’s also served on codefendants in this action, refusing withdrawal of the admissions would prevent

proper adjudication of the relevant issues on the merits for all defendants involved. Bonar’s admissions

would not be binding against his co-defendants; see Riberglass, Inc. v. Techni-Glass Indus., Inc., 811

F.2d 565, 566 (11th Cir. 1987); see also Castiglione v. United States Life Ins. Co. in City of N.Y., 262

F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1030 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“[C]odefendants are not bound by another defendant’s

admission.”). Upon reviewing the RFA’s, however, the Court agrees that the admissions in question

go to the underlying questions at issue in the litigation; while the admissions may not completely

obviate adjudication of the merits, they certainly do more than “merely streamline the issues for trial”

as BART contends. Granting withdrawal of the admissions will aid in presentation of the merits of the

case, and rather than bind Bonar with the deemed admissions and deprive him of the opportunity to

contest the issues on the merits, the Court finds the better approach to be one that ensures resolution on

the merits while addressing any prejudice suffered.

B. Prejudice to BART

To prevent withdrawal of an admission to an RFA under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(b),

the party who obtained the admission must “satisfy the court that withdrawal or amendment will

prejudice that party in maintaining the action or defense on the merits.” Such prejudice must be

substantial; it is insufficient merely to claim an additional burden because the admitted fact would have

to be proved. William W. Schwarzer, A. Wallace Tashima & James M. Wagstaffe, Federal Civil

Procedure Before Trial, § 11:2089 (The Rutter Group 2006). As the Ninth Circuit has explained: 

The prejudice contemplated by 36(b) is not simply that the party who obtained the

admission will now have to convince the factfinder of the truth; rather, it relates to the

difficulty a party may face in proving its case, for example by the unavailability of key

witnesses in light of the delay.

Sonoda v. Cabrera, 255 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2001). BART has failed to meet its burden of proving

that withdrawal of the admissions would substantially prejudice its case to the extent contemplated by

Rule 36(b). While BART may face some increased difficulty in proving the withdrawn admissions

because of the timing of the withdrawal and the impending discovery cutoff, such “prejudice” may be

alleviated by the discovery extension discussed below.

Case 3:04-cv-04632-SI Document 92 Filed 09/25/06 Page 2 of 4
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

C. Relief to BART

Despite granting the motion to withdraw admissions, the Court is mindful of Bonar’s failure to

comply with other discovery deadlines during the course of this litigation. While the prejudice to BART

resulting from Bonar’s tardy responses does not merit denial of Bonar’s motion to withdraw

admissions, the timing of the filing of this motion—six weeks after BART had clearly informed Bonar

that his tardy responses would not be accepted, and only two weeks before the discovery cutoff—cannot

be condoned without consequence. BART should not be required to maintain and pursue two different

discovery strategies—one in the event that the deemed admissions stand, and another in the event they

are withdrawn—simply because of Bonar’s delay in filing a motion to withdraw admissions. The Court

therefore grants BART an additional thirty days from the date of this order to serve follow-up written

discovery on Bonar. The cutoff as to BART’s discovery on Bonar alone is thus changed to October 25,

2006, and the Court will entertain requests to order shorter time limits for discovery response as

required. (Docket # 76)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 3:04-cv-04632-SI Document 92 Filed 09/25/06 Page 3 of 4
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

Dated: September 25, 2006 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-04632-SI Document 92 Filed 09/25/06 Page 4 of 4