IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

---o0o---

________________________________________________________________

RICHARD A. VILLAVER,

Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

DAVID KAWIKA SYLVA; HAWAII MEGA-COR, INC.,

a Hawaiʻi domestic for-profit corporation,

Respondents/Defendants-Appellees.

________________________________________________________________

SCWC-14-0001086

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-14-0001086; CIVIL NO. 10-1-2445)

MAY 13, 2019

RECKTENWALD, C.J., NAKAYAMA, McKENNA, POLLACK, AND WILSON, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY WILSON, J.

In order to expedite the often extensive discovery 

process, Hawaiʻi Rules of Civil Procedure (“HRCP”) Rule 36 allows 

a party to a lawsuit to “serve upon any other party a written 

request” for admissions. Requesting that a party admit the 

truth of matters of fact, or of the application of law to fact,

narrows the issues that must be proven at trial to those that 

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-14-0001086

13-MAY-2019

02:58 PM
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

2

are actually disputed, which fosters more efficient trials. 

However, because a careless or inexpert litigant might 

unintentionally admit an entire case by failing to respond to a 

request for admissions, HRCP Rule 36(b) gives the trial court 

the discretion to permit the withdrawal of the admissions on the 

motion of an admitting party, so long as withdrawal will 

facilitate presentation of the merits and will not prejudice the 

party that obtained the admissions. Courts should exercise this 

discretion liberally in cases involving pro se litigants, which 

invoke the judicial system’s interest in “promotion of equal 

access to justice[.]” Waltrip v. TS Enters., Inc., 140 Hawaiʻi

226, 239, 398 P.3d 815, 828 (2016).

In this case, claims brought by pro se 

Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant Richard A. Villaver (“Villaver”) 

were dismissed based on his alleged failure to timely respond to 

a request for admissions—notwithstanding his request that the 

court provide him with an interpreter to help answer the 

requests. Villaver was denied the opportunity to exercise the

right to a jury trial on the basis of his alleged failure to 

respond to a request for admissions that asked him to concede he 

had no claim. Villaver appeals from the judgment of the 

Intermediate Court of Appeals (“ICA”), which affirmed the order 

of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (“circuit court”) 

granting summary judgment against Villaver on the basis of his 
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

3

failure to timely respond to the request for admissions. He 

argues that the ICA erred in affirming the circuit court and 

that his request for an interpreter should have been construed 

by the circuit court as a request to withdraw the admissions and 

file a late response. We agree.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Complaint and Court-Annexed Arbitration

On November 15, 2010, Villaver filed a complaint in 

the circuit court, alleging that on August 20, 2008, 

Respondent/Defendant-Appellee David Kawika Sylva (“Sylva”), an 

employee of Respondent/Defendant-Appellee Hawaii Mega-Cor, Inc. 

(“HMCI”), negligently drove an HMCI-owned van into Villaver’s 

sedan while it was being operated by Villaver. Villaver alleged

that as a result of Respondents’ negligence, “he suffered and 

continues to suffer from damages including, but not limited to, 

past and future medical and related expenses; past and future 

pain and suffering; past and future loss of enjoyment of life; 

[and] past and future serious emotional distress,” and that he 

is entitled to compensation.

The matter proceeded through a non-binding Court 

Annexed Arbitration Program (“CAAP”), where Villaver was 

represented by counsel. The arbitrator found in favor of 

Villaver, and awarded him $24,245.58 in damages: $5,942.62 in 
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

4

medical expenses, $8,302.96 of lost wages, and $20,000 in 

general damages, less $10,000 for the covered loss deductible.

B. Post-CAAP Proceedings

On August 31, 2012, Villaver appealed the CAAP award

and requested a trial de novo. On March 13, 2013, Villaver’s 

attorney filed a motion to continue the trial and to withdraw as 

counsel. Villaver told his attorney that he would seek 

replacement legal counsel. Respondents took no position on the 

motion, and, after a hearing on April 3, 2013, the court granted 

the first motion to continue trial and for withdrawal of 

counsel, and set May 13, 2013 as the date for the trial setting 

conference. At the trial setting conference on May 13, 2013,

Villaver made his first pro se appearance and requested more 

time to obtain counsel. A new trial setting conference was set 

for June 20, 2013. On June 20, 2013, Villaver appeared pro se

for the second time, and trial was set for the week of June 23, 

2014. The discovery deadline had been set as April 24, 2014, 

and the substantive motions deadline had been set as May 5, 

2014.

Approximately nine months after Villaver’s second pro 

se appearance, on March 17, 2014, Respondents served Villaver 

with a request for admissions via U.S. mail. The request 

contained seventy-seven statements. Among those statements were 

five statements that the circuit court later relied upon to 
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

5

grant summary judgment to Respondents on all claims. The five 

statements requested that Villaver take a position contrary to 

the claims he successfully asserted before the CAAP arbitrator; 

specifically, they requested that he admit it was his negligence 

that caused the accident and that he incurred no injuries:

16. You were reversing your car out of a parking stall at 

the time of the subject accident.

. . . .

18. Your negligence was the sole legal cause of the 

subject accident.

. . . .

70. You did not sustain any injuries as a result of the 

subject accident.

. . . .

76. You did not incur any general damages as a result of 

the subject accident.

. . . .

77. You did not incur any special damages as a result of 

the subject accident.[1]

Less than a month after Villaver received the request 

for admissions, on April 15, 2014, defense counsel received a 

letter dated April 11, 2014 from Villaver’s wife. Her letter

explained that Villaver received the request for admissions and

understood that the deadline to respond was April 18, but stated 

that Villaver was unable to complete the paperwork. According 

to Villaver’s wife, Villaver became very stressed and 

 

1 Other requests for admissions related not only to authentication 

of documents and photographs, the extent of damages to Villaver’s vehicle, 

and circumstances of the accident, but also to medical examinations, 

treatment, diagnosis, and opinions which were clearly beyond Villaver’s 

expertise.
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

6

overwhelmed when he tried to answer the questions, had a 

difficult time remembering the specifics of his treatments, and 

did not understand English well. She explained further that 

Villaver did not have legal representation and that she could 

not help him because she was suffering from depression and 

anxiety. She concluded her letter by explaining that they were 

returning the paperwork to defense counsel uncompleted.

On May 1, 2014, Respondents Sylva and HMCI filed a 

motion for summary judgment. Respondents argued that, under 

HRCP Rule 36(a), because Villaver did not respond to the request 

for admissions within thirty days of service of the request, the 

matters contained within the request were admitted. HRCP Rule 

36(a) states that each matter for which an admission is 

requested “is admitted unless, within 30 days after service of 

the request, . . . the party to whom the request is directed 

serves upon the party requesting the admission a written answer 

or objection addressed to the matter, signed by the party or by 

the party’s attorney[.]” Based on Villaver’s admissions, 

Respondents argued that Villaver’s claims against them failed as 

a matter of law because he could not prove the elements of his

negligence claim. Accordingly, Respondents requested summary 

judgment. The letter from Villaver’s wife to defense counsel 

was attached to their motion as an exhibit.
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

7

Twenty days later, on May 21, 2014, the court held a 

hearing on Respondents’ motion for summary judgment.2 At the 

hearing, Villaver explained to the court that he could not 

respond to the request for admissions because he was losing 

memory of the event, and because he could not understand English 

well. He testified that he mostly spoke Visayan with his mother 

and Filipino in his business. He requested an interpreter to 

help him answer the questions, saying, “if you can give me one 

interpreter, that would help me for answer that question. 

Because some English I don’t really understand. . . . All I 

see, I cannot read. I cannot really understand.” The court 

noted that Villaver previously appeared in court and had not 

indicated that he had any difficulty speaking or understanding 

English; the court also elicited from Villaver that he had lived 

in Hawaiʻi for forty-one years and that he had attended public

elementary, intermediate, and high school in Hawaiʻi. The court 

denied his request for an interpreter to assist him with the 

written documents. The court also observed that its June 2013 

trial status-setting order contained various pre-trial 

deadlines, and that there had been ample time for Villaver to 

obtain new counsel or proceed pro se.

 

2 The Honorable Jeannette H. Castagnetti presided.
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

8

The court indicated to Villaver that it was inclined 

to grant the summary judgment motion on the basis of his failure 

to respond to the request for admissions:

[THE COURT:] Mr. Villaver, so the defendants are 

requesting that this court grant summary judgment in their 

favor, which means finding that they were not negligent, 

not liable, and that the basis, the reason why they’re 

saying they should get judgment in their favor, along -- in 

addition to what’s been argued today, is that you did not 

respond to the requests for admissions that were sent to 

you; and under the rules, if you don’t respond within the 

time period, the admissions are -- the requests are deemed 

admitted. So not responding to their requests for 

admissions within 30 days or by 30 days, you have now 

admitted the requests that they had put in there, in 

particular -- well, there’s a number of them. I won’t go 

through them because they’re all contained in the motion. 

But, essentially, the admission being that you were 

negligent and Defendants were not.

So I’m inclined to grant the motion, as the responses 

were not provided -- there was no response provided to the 

request for admissions. The rule requires a response.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the court deemed the 

statements admitted, concluded that there would be no genuine 

issue of material fact for trial, and granted Respondents’

motion for summary judgment.

Approximately one month after the hearing, on June 26, 

2014, the court’s order was filed. In the order, the court 

explained that “[b]ecause no written answer or objection 

addressed to the matter and signed by the Plaintiff was served 

with respect to Defendants’ Request for Admissions, Defendants’ 

Request for Admissions are therefore deemed admitted.” The 

court found that the following five admissions demonstrated that 

there were no genuine issues as to any material fact:
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

9

(a) Plaintiff was reversing his car out of a parking 

stall at the time of the subject accident (Request for 

Admissions No. 16);

(b) Plaintiff’s negligence was the sole legal cause 

of the subject accident (Request for Admissions No. 18);

(c) Plaintiff did not sustain any injuries as a 

result of the subject accident (Request for Admissions No. 

70);

(d) Plaintiff did not incur any general damages as a 

result of the subject accident (Request for Admissions No. 

76); and

(e) Plaintiff did not incur any special damages as a 

result of the subject accident (Request for Admissions No. 

77).

Based on these admitted facts, the court ordered that 

Respondents’ motion for summary judgment be granted. Judgment 

was entered in favor of Respondents on June 23, 2014. This 

appeal followed.

C. Appeal to the ICA 

On appeal, Villaver contended through retained counsel 

that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment. He 

argued that it should have allowed him to withdraw his 

admissions under HRCP Rule 36(b). HRCP Rule 36(b) provides 

discretion to the court to permit the withdrawal of admissions 

if doing so would facilitate presentation of the merits and 

would not prejudice the party that obtained the admissions: 

[T]he court may permit withdrawal or amendment [of any 

admission] 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 his or 

her action or defense on the merits.
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

10

Villaver’s opening brief requested that his “inarticulate pro 

se” attempts to explain his failure to respond to the request 

for admissions and the motion for summary judgment—namely, his 

wife’s letter to defense counsel and his oral arguments about 

his faulty memory and difficulty with the English language—be 

construed as a motion to withdraw the admissions under HRCP Rule 

36(b). He argued that the circuit court’s failure to consider 

his request for an interpreter as a motion to withdraw 

admissions was an abuse of its discretion, and that the circuit 

court erred in its decision to award summary judgment on the 

basis of the statements he was deemed to have admitted. He 

contended that the court should have allowed him to withdraw his 

admissions. He argued further that the court should have given 

him one last chance to obtain assistance of counsel and to 

answer the request for admissions with such assistance.

The ICA affirmed the circuit court’s order granting 

summary judgment. Villaver v. Sylva, No. CAAP-14-0001086, 2017 

WL 4534435, at *4 (App. Oct 11, 2017) (SDO). In reaching this 

decision, the ICA acknowledged that, where possible, the court 

should “afford[] litigants the opportunity to have their cases 

heard on the merits[.]” Id. at *2 (citing Marvin v. Pflueger, 

127 Hawaiʻi 490, 496, 280 P.3d 88, 94 (2012)). However, the ICA 

expressed concern that Villaver had not followed the rules of 

discovery while representing himself, stating that “pro se 
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

11

plaintiffs are not exempt from discovery rules.” Id. It found 

that Villaver’s wife’s letter was not a proper objection to the 

request for admissions under HRCP Rule 36(a), and that 

Villaver’s pro se in-court request for appointment of an 

interpreter was not a request to withdraw admissions. Id.

The ICA cited the standard enunciated in HRCP Rule 

36(b) to determine whether the circuit court properly exercised 

its discretion to allow for the withdrawal of admissions: 

[I]n exercising its discretion the court must apply the 

test set forth in Rule 36(b): (1) whether the presentation 

of the merits will be subserved if the withdrawal of the 

admission is permitted and (2) whether the party who 

obtained the admission can satisfy the court that 

withdrawal will prejudice him in maintaining his action or 

defense on the merits.

Id. at *3 (internal quotation marks and ellipses omitted) 

(quoting W.H. Shipman, Ltd. v. Hawaiian Holiday Macadamia Nut 

Co., 8 Haw. App. 354, 366–67, 802 P.2d 1203, 1209–10 (1990)). 

The ICA distinguished Villaver’s case from Shipman, wherein the 

defendant was represented by counsel who filed untimely answers 

to a request for admissions. Id. (citing Shipman, 8 Haw. App. 

at 366, 802 P.2d at 1209). The defendant in Shipman

subsequently filed a motion to amend a discovery order which the

ICA construed to impliedly include a motion to withdraw 

statements that had been previously deemed admitted and to 

submit a late response. 8 Haw. App. at 367, 820 P.2d at 1210. 

The ICA noted that in Shipman, defendant Hawaiian Holiday had
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

12

belatedly answered Shipman’s interrogatories, produced requested 

documents, and allowed Shipman to depose two of its officers; 

additionally, there were two and a half months left before trial 

when it did respond. Villaver, 2017 WL 4534435, at *3 (citing 

Shipman, 8 Haw. App. at 367, 820 P.2d at 1210). The ICA found 

it significant that at the time of his request for an 

interpreter, Villaver had not moved forward with discovery in 

any way, numerous discovery deadlines had passed, and there were 

only a few weeks left until trial. Id. at *4. The ICA held 

that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in 

concluding that Respondents would have been prejudiced in 

maintaining their defense if withdrawal was permitted. Id.

Villaver filed an application for a writ of certiorari 

with this court, which was accepted.

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court has 

“clearly exceeded the bounds of reason or disregarded rules or 

principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a 

party litigant.” Amfac, Inc. v. Waikiki Beachcomber Inv. Co., 

74 Haw. 85, 114, 839 P.2d 10, 26 (1992).

“On appeal, the grant or denial of summary judgment is 

reviewed de novo.” Nuuanu Valley Ass’n v. City & Cty. of 

Honolulu, 119 Hawaiʻi 90, 96, 194 P.3d 531, 537 (2008). 

“[S]ummary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, 
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

13

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, 

together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no 

genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party 

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (quoting 

Kahale v. City & Cty. Of Honolulu, 104 Hawaiʻi 341, 344, 90 P.3d 

233, 236 (2004)).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Villaver’s Request for an Interpreter Should Have Been 

Deemed a Motion to Withdraw His Admissions.

Although Villaver’s failure to respond to Respondents’ 

request for admissions provided a proper basis to find the 

requests admitted under HRCP Rule 36(a), his request for an 

interpreter should have been considered as a motion to withdraw 

his admissions under HRCP Rule 36(b). 

HRCP Rule 36(a) allows one party to serve another a 

written request for admissions. A request for admissions must 

set forth statements of fact, of opinion, or of the application 

of law to fact, that concern issues in the case. HRCP Rule 

36(a). The party in receipt of the request can answer or object 

to each matter for which an admission is requested. If the 

party chooses to answer, the party must “specifically deny the 

matter or set forth in detail the reasons why the answering 

party cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter.” Id. If the 

party denies a matter, the party must “fairly meet the substance 
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

14

of the requested admission[.]” Id. If the party gives lack of 

information or knowledge as a reason for failure to admit or 

deny a matter, the party must “state[] that the party has made 

reasonable inquiry and that the information known or readily 

obtainable by the party is insufficient to enable the party to 

admit or deny.” Id. If the party chooses to object, it must 

state the reasons for the objection. Id. An answer or 

objection must be written and signed by the party or the party’s 

attorney. Id. If the party neither answers nor objects to a 

matter within thirty days after service of the request for 

admissions, or within such shorter or longer time as the court 

allows or the parties agree to in writing, then the matter is 

admitted. Id.

As Villaver concedes, he failed to respond to the 

request for admissions within thirty days of service as required 

by HRCP Rule 36(a).3 The letter from Villaver’s wife to defense 

counsel did not constitute an answer or objection to the request 

for admissions pursuant to HRCP Rule 36(a), and, as such, did 

not preclude the court from deeming the statements admitted 

after thirty days. In her letter, Villaver’s wife explained 

that Villaver was unable to respond to the request for 

admissions because, when he tried, he became overwhelmed, 

 

3 Respondents served Villaver with the request for admissions on 

March 17, 2014. Villaver’s wife sent her letter on April 11, 2014, and it 

was received by defense counsel on April 15, 2014. The thirty day response 

deadline expired on April 16, 2014.
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

15

couldn’t remember facts, or couldn’t understand the questions. 

She explained that they were returning the paperwork to defense 

counsel uncompleted. Her letter did not constitute an answer

because it was not signed by Villaver or by an attorney

representative, and thus did not comply with HRCP Rule 36(a). 

Furthermore, the letter could not be construed as a motion to 

withdraw admissions because the letter was sent and received

before the statements in the request for admissions were deemed 

admitted. However, the letter was relevant to the court’s 

determination as to the degree to which Villaver sought to 

comply with the request for admissions, and whether his request 

for an interpreter warranted a continuance of the hearing on the 

motion for summary judgment and withdrawal of his admissions.

Because neither Villaver nor an attorney representing 

him complied with the answer or objection requirements of HRCP 

Rule 36(a) within thirty days of service of the request, the 

statements in the request were properly deemed admitted; we 

therefore consider Villaver’s contention that the circuit court 

erred by failing to consider his request for an interpreter as a 

motion to withdraw his admissions pursuant to HRCP Rule 36(b). 

HRCP Rule 36(b) provides that the court may allow any matter 

admitted under HRCP Rule 36(a) to be withdrawn upon an 

appropriate motion: “Any matter admitted under this rule is 
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

16

conclusively established unless the court on motion permits 

withdrawal or amendment of the admission.”

Villaver’s oral request for an interpreter to help him 

answer the admissions was not a formal motion to withdraw 

admissions. But his failure to observe formalities did not 

preclude the court from permitting him to withdraw his 

admissions, as Hawaiʻi courts have considered untimely responses

to a request for admissions as constituting an informal motion 

to withdraw admissions. One such example is In re Trade Wind 

Tours of Hawaii, Inc., wherein the ICA addressed the director of 

taxation’s untimely filing of answers to a request for 

admissions. 6 Haw. App. 260, 264, 718 P.2d 1122, 1125 (1986). 

The ICA held that the tax appeal court “did not abuse its 

discretion in deeming the Director’s admissions to have been 

withdrawn upon the filing of the answers.” Id. at 264, 718 P.2d 

at 1126. Similarly, in Shipman, the ICA held that late 

responses to a request for admissions could be considered a 

request for withdrawal of the admissions. 8 Haw. App. at 366, 

802 P.2d at 1209. In that case, the circuit court entered an 

order deeming admitted the statements in the request for 

admissions served by Shipman on Hawaiian Holiday because 

Hawaiian Holiday had not responded before the HRCP Rule 36(a) 

thirty-day deadline. Id. at 365, 802 P.2d at 1209. The court 

subsequently denied Hawaiian Holiday’s motion to amend an order 
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

17

to compel discovery which provided that all matters covered by 

the request for admissions were deemed admitted. Id. at 358-59,

802 P.2d at 1206. The ICA held that Hawaiian Holiday’s motion 

to amend the order deeming the matters in the request admitted, 

made after late service of its response to the request, was

“impliedly a motion to withdraw the Rule 36(a) automatic 

admissions.” Id. at 366, 802 P.2d at 1209. The ICA held that

“the allowance of a late filing of a response to a request for 

admissions by the court ‘is the equivalent of allowing a party 

to withdraw admissions made by operation of Rule 36(a).’” Id.

(quoting Trade Wind Tours, 6 Haw. App. at 264, 718 P.2d at

1126); see also Bergemann v. United States, 820 F.2d 1117, 1121 

(10th Cir. 1987) (finding that “both the response to [the 

plaintiff’s] motion for summary judgment and the recorded pretrial hearings in this case were, in essence, motions to 

withdraw the admissions”); Warren v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 

Chauffers, Warehousemen & Helpers of Am., 544 F.2d 334, 339 (8th 

Cir. 1976) (“To allow a late filing of answers to a request for 

admissions is the equivalent of allowing a party to withdraw 

admissions made by operation of Rule 36(a).” (internal 

parentheticals omitted) (quoting Pleasant Hill Bank v. United 

States, 60 F.R.D. 1, 3 (W.D. Mo. 1973))). 
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

18

In the present case, when Villaver made his request 

for an interpreter, the circumstances constituted a request to 

the court for permission to withdraw his admissions and file a 

late response to the request for admissions. His wife had 

indicated that he needed a lawyer to help him complete the 

paperwork sent to him by Respondents. Villaver requested the 

interpreter for the purpose of filing his response to the 

request for admissions: “So if I -- if -- if I need -- if you 

can give me one interpreter, that would help me for answer that 

question.” The circuit court recognized that Villaver’s purpose 

in asking for an interpreter was in part to file a late response 

to the request for admissions, stating “I’m inclined at this 

point to . . . deny . . . [Villaver’s] request for an 

interpreter to assist him with the written documents that he’s 

received from the other side.” The request to file a late 

response to a request for admission was the equivalent of a 

request to withdraw admissions. See Trade Wind Tours, 6 Haw. 

App. at 264, 718 P.2d at 1126.

Villaver’s status as a pro se litigant supports

construing his request for an interpreter as a request to 

withdraw his admissions and file a late response. In the 

context of pro se pleadings, we have explained that “[a] 

fundamental tenet of Hawaiʻi law is that ‘[p]leadings prepared by 

pro se litigants should be interpreted liberally[,]’” and that 
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

19

“[t]he underpinnings of this tenet rest on the promotion of 

equal access to justice[.]” Waltrip, 140 Hawaiʻi at 239, 398 

P.3d at 828 (quoting Dupree v. Hiraga, 121 Hawaiʻi 297, 314, 219 

P.3d 1084, 1101 (2009)). In Waltrip, we favorably noted that 

“[f]ederal courts have extended this ‘liberality doctrine’ to 

include pro se motions in certain scenarios[,]” and held that 

liberal construction of motions was appropriate in workers’ 

compensation cases, as they typically provide “the only recovery 

available for an employee who is injured at work[.]” Id. 

Similarly, Villaver’s pro se request for an interpreter at the 

hearing should have been interpreted liberally as a request to 

withdraw his admissions and file a late response, particularly 

since a more restrictive interpretation would have extinguished

his only opportunity to recover on his negligence claim.

B. The Circuit Court Abused Its Discretion by Failing to Apply 

the Two Factors of Rule 36(b) to Villaver’s Informal Motion to 

Withdraw Admissions and File a Late Response.

To determine whether to permit Villaver to withdraw 

his admissions, the circuit court was required to consider the 

two factors enumerated in HRCP Rule 36(b): “(1) whether ‘the 

presentation of the merits will be subserved’ if the withdrawal 

of the admission is permitted and (2) whether the party who 

obtained the admission can ‘satisfy the court that withdrawal 

. . . will prejudice him in maintaining his action or defense on 

the merits.’” Shipman, 8 Haw. App. at 367, 802 P.2d at 1209–10 
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

20

(quoting HRCP Rule 36(b)). When both factors are met—that is, 

when withdrawal would promote presentation of the merits but 

would not prejudice the party that obtained the admissions—the 

court may permit withdrawal.

The circuit court in the present case did not consider 

either of the two HRCP Rule 36(b) factors. With respect to the 

first factor, the court was required to consider whether 

“upholding the admissions would practically eliminate any 

presentation of the merits of the case.” Conlon v. United 

States, 474 F.3d 616, 622 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Hadley v. 

United States, 45 F.3d 1345, 1348 (9th Cir. 1995)). Thus, the 

first factor weighed in favor of permitting Villaver to withdraw

his admissions; otherwise, the admissions necessarily required

the court to grant summary judgment and precluded a trial on the 

merits. Denial of the request to withdraw admissions did not 

subserve the presentation of the merits.

The circuit court also did not consider the second 

factor, whether withdrawal would prejudice the party that 

obtained the admission. Prejudice under HRCP Rule 36(b) does 

not contemplate the prejudice that the party who obtained the 

admissions will incur merely because the admissions are no 

longer deemed admitted; such a standard would render the 

withdrawal of admissions nearly impossible. Instead, prejudice 

in this context deals with the difficulty to the party who 
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

21

obtained the admissions from proving its case once the

admissions are withdrawn:

The prejudice contemplated by the Rule is not simply that 

the party who initially obtained the admission will now 

have to convince the fact finder 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 answered by the admissions.

Perez v. Miami-Dade Cty., 297 F.3d 1255, 1266 (11th Cir. 2002)

(quoting Smith v. First Nat. Bank of Atlanta, 837 F.2d 1575, 

1578 (11th Cir. 1988)); see also Conlon, 474 F.3d at 624 (“[W]e 

are reluctant to conclude that a lack of discovery, without 

more, constitutes prejudice. The district court could have 

reopened the discovery period . . . and prejudice must relate to 

the difficulty a party may face in proving its case at 

trial[.]”). Thus, the party that has obtained the admissions 

must show that withdrawal of the admissions will impact its

ability to prove the facts previously admitted. 

Here, the circuit court did not address, nor did it 

ask the parties to address, whether allowing Villaver’s 

withdrawal would unfairly prejudice Respondents.

4 Thus, 

Respondents, “the part[ies] who obtained the admissions[,] 

fail[ed] to satisfy the court that withdrawal or amendment 

[would] prejudice that party in maintaining his or her action or 

 

4 The court did emphasize that it would not postpone the trial 

further, particularly given that Villaver knew about the trial deadlines. 

However, the court did not consider how the expiration of the trial deadlines 

in conjunction with allowing Villaver to file a late response would prejudice 

Respondents.
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

22

defense on the merits.” HRCP Rule 36(b). The record does not 

indicate that Respondents would have suffered prejudice to their 

case if the admissions were permitted to be withdrawn; to the 

contrary, it indicates they had adequate opportunity to, and 

did, develop their case without the aid of the admissions, and 

that withdrawal of the admissions would not have created a need 

for new evidence otherwise addressed by the admissions. 

Respondents were clearly on notice throughout the case regarding 

Villaver’s allegations of negligence and the damages he claimed

to have suffered. Those allegations were addressed in the CAAP

process. Respondents conducted over a year and a half of 

discovery well before the statements in the request for 

admissions were deemed admitted.

5

The circumstances of this case exemplify a disfavored 

use of HRCP Rule 36, one in which proponents submit a request 

for admissions “with the wild-eyed hope that the other side will

fail to answer and therefore admit essential elements” of his 

case. Perez, 297 F.3d at 1268; see also Bergemann, 820 F.2d at

1121; cf. Cty. of Hawaiʻi v. Ala Loop Homeowners, 123 Hawaiʻi

391, 423, 235 P.3d 1103, 1135 (2010) (“Defaults are generally 

 

5 The record indicates that by April 2014, Respondents had 

identified at least thirty-five lay witnesses and eighteen expert witnesses 

they intended to call to testify at trial, and had served subpoenas duces 

tecum to State Farm Insurance Companies, Workstar Injury Recovery Center, and 

Claudette H. Ozoa, Ph.D. The request for admissions itself indicates that 

Respondents had developed various theories under which they would avoid 

liability to Villaver.
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

23

disfavored.”), abrogated on other grounds by Tax Found. of 

Hawaiʻi v. State, No. SCAP-16-0000462, 2019 WL 1292286 (Haw. Mar. 

21, 2019). The circuit court should have considered Villaver’s 

informal motion to withdraw his admissions under the two factors 

of HRCP Rule 36(b) relating to presentation of the merits and 

prejudice to the non-admitting party, both of which favored 

withdrawal. In failing to grant the motion, the court abused 

its discretion.

IV. CONCLUSION

Villaver’s pro se request to obtain an interpreter 

before the court entered summary judgment against him should 

have been considered a motion to withdraw his admissions and 

continue the hearing on the motion for summary judgment. The 

court’s discretion in ruling on the motion to withdraw 

admissions under HRCP Rule 36(b) was bound by the requirement 

that it consider whether the merits of the case would be served 

by withdrawal and whether the party obtaining the admissions 

would be prejudiced by the withdrawal. It was an abuse of 

discretion to deny withdrawal of Villaver’s admissions. Absent 

the admissions, the record contains genuine issues of material 

fact that preclude summary judgment against Villaver.

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the ICA’s 

November 22, 2017 judgment on appeal and the circuit court’s 

June 26, 2014 order granting summary judgment and July 28, 2014 
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

24

judgment and remand the case to the Circuit Court of the First 

Circuit for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Charles H. Brower /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

for Petitioner

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

J. Patrick Gallagher

Erin I. Macdonald /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

for Respondents

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson