Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02753/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02753-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Wrongful Death

---

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

06cv2753

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OFELIA RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et

al.,

Defendants. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 06-CV-2753-W (JMA)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM

RESPONSES AUTOMATICALLY DEEMED

ADMITTED 

[Docs. 41, 42]

Plaintiffs Ofelia Rodriguez, Myra Ponce, Ismael Martinez and

Kimberline Martinez (hereinafter collectively “Plaintiffs”) have

timely filed a Motion for Relief from Responses Automatically

Deemed Admitted. Defendant United States of America (hereinafter

“the Government”) opposes. For the reasons set forth below, the

Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ motion.

I. BACKGROUND

On or about July 15, 2008, the Government served Requests

for Admissions upon Plaintiffs. Def.’s Ex. 1. As of September

15, 2008, Plaintiffs had not responded, and the Government served

a Notice of Deemed Admissions in which it indicated that the

Case 3:06-cv-02753-W-JMA Document 50 Filed 12/22/08 Page 1 of 9
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 06cv2753

requests for admissions were deemed admitted by virtue of

Plaintiffs’ failure to respond thereto. Def.’s Ex. 2. 

Plaintiffs state that they “inadvertently neglected to send out

their responses and denials” to the requests, and that they did

not realize this until the Government’s counsel advised their

counsel of this fact. Pls.’ Mem. at 3; Barraza Decl., ¶ 7. 

Plaintiffs state that they immediately thereafter served

responses to the requests. Pls.’ Mem. at 3; Barraza Decl., ¶ 8;

Pls.’ Lodgment of Exhibits, Ex. B. Plaintiffs now seek relief

from the deemed admissions.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, applicable

to requests for admission, states 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). Any matter

admitted under Rule 36 is “conclusively established unless the

court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or

amended.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b). “[T]he court may permit

withdrawal or amendment 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 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). This prong is satisfied when “upholding the

Case 3:06-cv-02753-W-JMA Document 50 Filed 12/22/08 Page 2 of 9
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

1

Since the issuance of its ruling in Omni Home Financing, Inc. v.

Hartford Life and Annuity Ins. Co., 2007 WL 4570772 (S.D. Cal., Dec.

27, 2007), and in consideration of the issues raised in the instant

motion, the Court has conducted further research and analysis into the

standard to be used when evaluating a motion to withdraw or amend

admissions. Although the first half of the test in Rule 36(b) is

clearly satisfied when upholding the admissions would practically

eliminate any presentation of the merits of the case, that is not the

sole criterion for withdrawal or amendment of deemed admissions. See, e.g., Januszewski v. Village of Oak Lawn, 2008 WL 4898959, at *2 (N.D.

Ill., Nov. 12, 2008); see also Bretana v. International Collection

Corp., 2008 WL 4948446, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2008) (finding first

prong satisfied when deemed admissions would “preclude defendants from

refuting aspects of plaintiff’s claims”). The Court finds the recent

application of Rule 36(b) by the district courts in Januszewski and

Bretana to be not only consistent with Ninth Circuit law, but also

consistent with the plain language of the Rule.

3 06cv2753

admissions would practically eliminate any presentation of the

merits of the case.” Conlon v. United States, 474 F.3d 616, 622

(9th Cir. 2007), citing Hadley v. United States, 45 F.3d 1345,

1348 (9th Cir. 1995). This prong is also satisfied when

amendment or withdrawal of the admissions would “facilitate a

presentation of the merits” of the case. Hadley, 45 F.3d at

1348.1 

The second half of the test, the prejudice component,

requires “not simply that the party who obtained the admission

will now have to convince the factfinder of its truth. Rather,

it relates to the difficulty a party may face in proving its

case, e.g., caused by the unavailability of key witnesses,

because of the sudden need to obtain evidence with respect to the

questions previously deemed admitted.” Id. (citation and

quotations omitted). The party relying on the deemed admission

has the burden of establishing that withdrawal or amendment of

the admission would prejudice the party’s case. Id.

//

//

Case 3:06-cv-02753-W-JMA Document 50 Filed 12/22/08 Page 3 of 9
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 06cv2753

III. DISCUSSION

In their September 16, 2008 responses to the Government’s

requests for admissions (hereinafter “Plaintiffs’ September 16,

2008 responses”), Plaintiffs expressly admitted the matters set

forth in Request Nos. 1, 3, 5, 14 and 15. Pls.’ Lodgment of

Exhibits, Ex. B. Although the responses were untimely, the

resultant effect is that Plaintiffs presently challenge only

those requests not already expressly admitted by them, i.e.,

Request Nos. 2, 4, 6-7, 8-13 and 16. 

A. Presentation of the Merits

1. Request Nos. 2 and 4

Request Nos. 2 and 4 concern the nature of the relationship

between Plaintiff Myra Ponce and the decedent, Guillermo Martinez

Rodriguez. Request No. 2 seeks the following admission:

Guillermo Martinez Rodriguez and Myra Ponce were not

formally married in accordance with the law of the

State of Baja California, Mexico.

Although the Government acknowledges that even a deemed

admission of this matter will still require an analysis of, inter

alia, whether Ms. Ponce qualifies as a “concubine” under Baja

California law, the Court is concerned about the vagueness and

potential overbreadth of the term “formally married” as used in

Request No. 2. While it does not appear that the Government

would use the deemed admission to foreclose Ms. Ponce from

attempting to establish a concubinage relationship with the

decedent (see Def.’s Opp’n at 7-8), allowing the admission to be

withdrawn will undoubtedly “facilitate a presentation of the

merits” of this aspect of the case. Hadley, 45 F.3d at 1348. 

The deemed admission of Request No. 2 could potentially affect

Case 3:06-cv-02753-W-JMA Document 50 Filed 12/22/08 Page 4 of 9
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

5 06cv2753

Ms. Ponce’s standing to sue, and thus could potentially be

dispositive of her claims. Accordingly, the Court finds that the

first prong under Rule 36(b) is satisfied as to this request.

Request No. 4 seeks the following admission:

California does not recognize “concubinage” under the

law of the State of Baja California, Mexico as the

equivalent of common law marriage.

Requests for admission are permitted in order to establish the

truth of specified facts, as well as an “application of law to

fact,” but are not permitted on a disputed contention of pure

law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a); Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v.

Welles, 60 F. Supp. 2d 1050, 1057 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (stating that

“[r]equests for admissions cannot be used to compel an admission

of a conclusion of law). Request No. 4 improperly requires

Plaintiffs to make a conclusion of law. The Court accordingly

sua sponte STRIKES Request No. 4 and the deemed admission

thereto. 

2. Request Nos. 6-7

Request Nos. 6 and 7 seek the following admissions:

Request No. 6: Guillermo Martinez Rodriguez’ primary

source of income in 2005 was smuggling aliens across

the international border between the United States and

Mexico.

Request No. 7: In 2005, Luis Martinez Rodriguez paid,

or arranged for Guillermo Rodriguez Martinez to be

paid, for alien smuggling activities.

These requests concern the source of the decedent’s income

in 2005. Plaintiffs argue that the deemed admissions to these

requests would prevent them from receiving compensation for the

loss of economic support by the decedent. The deemed admissions,

however, would not preclude Plaintiffs from presenting evidence

Case 3:06-cv-02753-W-JMA Document 50 Filed 12/22/08 Page 5 of 9
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

6 06cv2753

of any legally derived income earned by the decedent. Moreover,

should Plaintiffs wish to contend that income derived from alien

smuggling activities is a proper element of damages, the

admissions will not prevent them from doing so. The Court thus

finds that the first prong of the test set forth in Rule 36(b)

has not been satisfied.

3. Request Nos. 8-13

Request Nos. 8 through 13 concern a prior incident at the

border which occurred on June 4, 2005 and which allegedly

involved the decedent:

Request No. 8: On June 4, 2005, Guillermo Martinez

Rodriguez crossed the primary fence between Mexico and

the United States while engaged in alien smuggling

activities.

Request No. 9: On June 4, 2005, Guillermo Martinez

Rodriguez used a rebar ladder to assist aliens over the

secondary fence into the United States. 

Request No. 10: On June 4, 2005, Guillermo Martinez

Rodriguez threw one or more rocks at a Border Patrol

agent or agents.

Request No. 11: On June 4, 2005, Martin Delgado

Martinez witnessed Guillermo Martinez Rodriguez throw

rocks at a Border Patrol agent or agents.

Request No. 12: On June 4, 2005, Border Patrol Agent

Jose Contreras fired his service weapon in Guillermo

Martinez Rodriguez’ direction after Border Patrol Agent

Miguel Ponce was struck by a rock.

Request No. 13: [Duplicate of Request No. 11]

Although the deemed admissions are not case-dispositive,

they may certainly have an effect on the merits of the action. 

Requiring the deemed admissions to stand would take away

Plaintiffs’ ability to rebut the Government’s asserted intent to

use the admissions “to help prove Decedent’s identity as the

source of the rock thrown at Agent Campos and to prove Decedent’s

Case 3:06-cv-02753-W-JMA Document 50 Filed 12/22/08 Page 6 of 9
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

7 06cv2753

recklessness in ‘rocking’ Agent Campos despite personal knowledge

that an Agent may respond to being ‘rocked’ with deadly force.” 

Def.’s Opp’n at 10. If the deemed admissions are used to this

effect, they may very well convince the trier of fact that the

decedent did throw a rock at Agent Campos during the subject

incident, an assertion which Plaintiffs hotly contest. See Pls.’

Resps. to Req. for Admissions, Nos. 8-13. Given the unqualified

denials of the requests set forth in the Plaintiffs’ September

16, 2008 responses, in which Plaintiffs assert that the decedent

was not even present at the location of the prior incident, the

deemed admissions would significantly impair Plaintiffs’ ability

to refute the Government’s assertion about the decedent’s alleged

prior rock-throwing incident. The Court is thus satisfied the

first prong of the test in Rule 36(b) has been met as to these

requests. 

4. Request No. 16

Request No. 16 seeks the following admission:

On December 30, 2005, Guillermo Martinez Rodriguez

threw one or more rocks at Border Patrol Agent Faustino

Campos.

A trier of fact, on the basis of this admission alone, could

potentially be convinced that Agent Campos was justified in

shooting the decedent. This could absolutely “take the wind out

of [Plaintiffs’] sails” (see Perez v. Miami-Dade County, 297 F.3d

1255, 1266 (11th Cir. 2002)), as Plaintiffs would be precluded

from presenting their version of the events that took place

during the incident in question. It is thus clear that this

admission, when compared to the response contained in Plaintiffs’

September 16, 2008 responses, in which Plaintiffs deny the

Case 3:06-cv-02753-W-JMA Document 50 Filed 12/22/08 Page 7 of 9
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

8 06cv2753

request without qualification, would significantly impair

Plaintiffs’ ability to present the merits of their case and/or

would impair their ability to rebut the Government’s and/or Agent

Campos’ defense. The Court finds that the first prong under Rule

36(b) is satisfied.

B. Prejudice to Defendants

The Government has made no argument that it would be

prejudiced by a withdrawal or amendment of Plaintiffs’ deemed

admissions. It carries the burden of establishing such

prejudice. Hadley, 45 F.3d at 1348. Therefore, the second prong

of Rule 36(b) is satisfied as to all requests at issue in

Plaintiffs’ motion.

Plaintiffs have accordingly satisfied the two-pronged test

as to Request Nos. 2, 8-13 and 16.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby GRANTS IN

PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief from

Responses Automatically Deemed Admitted, as follows:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion as to Request Nos. 2, 8-13 and 16 is

GRANTED. The Court accordingly shall allow amendment of the

deemed admissions to these requests, and permits the answers set

forth in Plaintiffs’ September 16, 2008 responses to stand; and

2. Plaintiffs’ motion as to Request Nos. 6 and 7 is DENIED.

Plaintiffs’ September 16, 2008 responses to these requests for

admissions are stricken and the matters therein are deemed

admitted.

//

//

Case 3:06-cv-02753-W-JMA Document 50 Filed 12/22/08 Page 8 of 9
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

9 06cv2753

Additionally, the Court sua sponte STRIKES Request No. 4,

and the deemed admission thereto, on the basis that the request

constitutes an impermissible request for admission. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 22, 2008

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02753-W-JMA Document 50 Filed 12/22/08 Page 9 of 9