Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00943/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00943-3/pdf.json

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

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

The Court held an informal telephonic conference regarding the plaintiff’s request to withdraw 

the deemed admissions. At the conference, counsel agreed that the requirement for a formal motion 

was waived and the parties would accept the Court’s determination made on the informal briefs.1 For 

the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the plaintiff’s request withdraw the deemed 

admissions and to substitute the recently served responses. to amend the case schedule and the defense 

motion for a protective order. 

I. Factual circumstances

On April 7, 2021, the defense served the plaintiff requests to admit certain facts. (Doc. 36 at 1; 

Doc. 38 at 1) Counsel met and conferred about the requests and were able to resolve certain issues. 

(Doc. 36 at 1; Doc 38 at 1) Due to the busy schedule of plaintiff’s counsel, Ms. Ricketts’, she failed to 

1 The plaintiff filed an initial informal brief (Doc. 34) and then an amended informal brief (Doc. 36). Because the 

amended brief supersedes the original brief, the Court considers only the amended informal brief.

BARRY KING,

 Plaintiff,

v.

KINGS COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:20-CV-00943- JLT (PC)

ORDER AFTER INFORMAL TELEPHONIC 

CONFERENCE RE: DEEMED ADMISSIONS

(Docs. 34, 36, 37)

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-00943-CDB Document 41 Filed 09/02/21 Page 1 of 3
2

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

calendar the responsive deadline and failed to serve responses. Id. When the parties met and conferred 

about another dispute in mid-August, Ms. Ricketts was reminded of the RFAs and the plaintiff’s failure 

to respond. (Doc. 38 at 3) The defense asserted that the facts were deemed admitted. Id. Ms. Ricketts 

quickly drafted a response to the RFAs and served it.

II. Legal Authority

If a party fails to respond to requests for admission, they are deemed admitted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 

36(a)(3), (b). To determine whether the Court should permit the withdrawal of the deemed admissions, 

the Court must consider whether withdrawal will promote a determination of the merits of the action 

and the extent to which withdrawal will prejudice the defense. Id. At the conference, counsel agreed 

there was no dispute that the request for admissions was properly served or that withdrawal of the 

admissions would promote a determination on the merits. Thus, the Court must focus on the prejudice 

to the defense.

The defense asserts that it has suffered prejudice because it relied upon the admissions when 

choosing not to propound additional discovery. (Doc. 37 at 2-3) In general, courts conclude that 

prejudice must “relate to the difficulty a party may face in proving its case at trial.’” Conlon v. U.S.,

474 F.3d 616, 624 (9

th Cir. 2007). When the prejudice suffered relates only to missed opportunities for 

discovery—even when the discovery deadline has passed—courts are encouraged to reopen discovery 

to cure the prejudice. Id.

The defense argues that even if the Court concludes that the prejudice can be cured, the Court 

should not allow the admissions to be withdrawn based upon the weakness of the plaintiff’s case.

However, the relative strengths and weaknesses of the parties’ cases are not apparent to the Court at 

this juncture. Consequently, the Court ORDERS:

1. The plaintiff’s informal motion to withdraw the admissions is GRANTED;

2. The defense is permitted to serve discovery requests to cure the prejudice imposed by

plaintiff’s failure to respond timely to the requests for admission. The defense SHALL propound this 

discovery no later than September 10, 2021, and the verified response is due no later than October 

12, 2021.

3. To further cure the prejudice, the case schedule is amended to allow expert discovery to 

Case 1:20-cv-00943-CDB Document 41 Filed 09/02/21 Page 2 of 3
3

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 no later than November 5, 2021.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 1, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00943-CDB Document 41 Filed 09/02/21 Page 3 of 3