Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-04232/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-04232-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Will G. Russell, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

City of Chandler, an Arizona Municipal

Corporation; Dale Walters, a married

man, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV05-4232-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw admissions pursuant to

Rule 36(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #33. For the reasons set forth

below, the Court will grant the motion. Plaintiff shall have 15 days from the date of this

order to respond to Defendants’ request for admissions.

I. Background.

Defendants served a request for admissions on October 10, 2006. Dkt. #33 at 1.

Plaintiff failed to respond within the required thirty days. Id. On November 14, 2006, the

day after the response was due, Plaintiff requested an extension of the deadline. Defendants

refused. Dkt. #38 at 4. Defendants informed Plaintiff in a November 28, 2006 letter that the

requests were deemed admitted pursuant to Rule 36(b). Id. On December 22, 2006, Plaintiff

filed this motion. Dkt. #33.

/ / /

Case 2:05-cv-04232-DGC Document 40 Filed 03/19/07 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

II. Legal Standard.

Any matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the court

on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission. . . . [T]he court

may permit withdrawal or amendment when the presentation of the merits of

the action will be subserved thereby and 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. Proc. 36(b). The rule serves two purposes: “truth-seeking in litigation and

efficiency in dispensing justice.” Conlon v. United States, 474 F.3d 616, 622 (9th Cir. 2007).

III. Analysis.

A. Subserving Presentation of the Merits.

“The first prong of this test . . . essentially asks if allowing the withdrawal will aid in

the resolution of the case.” Gallegos v. City of Los Angeles, 308 F.3d 987, 993 (9th Cir.

2002). Substantive answers are more likely to reflect the truth than admissions gained by

default. Granting a withdrawal of the admissions will therefore promote truth-seeking and

subserve presentation of the merits.

B. Prejudice to Defendants.

“The prejudice contemplated by Rule 36(b) . . . ‘relates to the difficulty a party may

face in proving its case, e.g., caused by . . . the sudden need to obtain evidence’ with respect

to the questions previously deemed admitted.” Conlon, 474 F.3d at 622 (quoting Hadley v.

United States, 45 F.3d 1345, 1348 (9th Cir. 1995)). Defendants argue that they will be

prejudiced because they have only a short time to conduct sufficient discovery prior to the

Court’s discovery deadline, including deposing Plaintiff, identifying and locating people in

the photographs referenced in the request for admissions, and interviewing Plaintiff’s coworkers. These difficulties, however, do not rise to the level of prejudice required by courts

in refusing withdrawal of defaulted admissions. See, e.g., 999 v. C.I.T. Corp., 776 F.2d 866,

869 (9th Cir. 1985) (prejudice found where motion to withdraw was brought in the middle

of trial after party, which had relied heavily on the admissions, had nearly rested its case);

Conlon, 474 F.3d at 624 (prejudice found where the motion to withdraw was made after

discovery had closed and trial was eight days away); Hadley, 45 F.3d at 1349 (insufficient

Case 2:05-cv-04232-DGC Document 40 Filed 03/19/07 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

prejudice where the government failed to address several issues during deposition in reliance

on the admissions); Sonoda v. Cabrera, 255 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2001) (insufficient

prejudice where the motion was made before trial and the party could adequately present its

evidence).

The Court will entertain a request from Defendants to extend the discovery schedule

2-3 months. If Defendants desire such an extension and the parties agree upon a new

deadline, a stipulation referring to this order should filed with the Court. If the parties cannot

agree, they should arrange a conference call with the Court. 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw admissions (Dkt. # 33) is granted. 

2. Plaintiff shall respond to the request for admission within 15 days of this

order.

DATED this 19th day of March, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-04232-DGC Document 40 Filed 03/19/07 Page 3 of 3