Opinion ID: 773897
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 36(b) Motion

Text: 8 Pursuant to Rule 36(a), if a party fails to answer a request for admissions within thirty days, the requested items are deemed admitted. However, Rule 36(b) provides, in pertinent part: 9 [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the action or defense on the merits. 10 Accordingly, two requirements must be met before an admission may be withdrawn: (1) presentation of the merits of the action must be subserved, and (2) the party who obtained the admission must not be prejudiced by the withdrawal. The party who obtained the admission has the burden of proving that allowing withdrawal of the admission would prejudice its case. Hadley v. United States, 45 F.3d 1345, 1348 (9th Cir. 1995). 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. Id. at 1349 (finding only inconvenience but not prejudice despite the moving party's contention that if the admission had been timely it would have been able to engage in more extensive trial preparation); see also 999, 776 F.2d at 869 (finding prejudice when the motion was not made until the middle of trial when 999 had nearly rested its case and the record revealed that 999 had relied heavily on the admission and had even shown the admission to the jury). 11 The district court's grant of the 36(b) motion was not an abuse of discretion. First, presentation of the merits of this action would not be subserved if the admissions remained in effect. Here, the admissions included: Do you admit that you disapproved of Plaintiff's attendance at and testimony to the Special Committee on Substance Abuse of the CNMI House of Representatives on March 1, 1996?; Do you admit that you are aware of Article XX of the NMI Constitution's mandate that all government employees are within the civil service system unless provided otherwise by law?;Do you admit that until Plaintiff testified on March 1, 1996, before the House Special Committee on Substance Abuse that you were satisfied with his performance of his duties and responsibilities as Director of Customs?; Do you admit that [your belief that Sonoda sympathized with the Republicans] is the reason for Plaintiff's termination without cause on March 6, 1996?. In light of Sonoda's due process and First Amendment claims, these admissions would effectively eliminate a merits determination. 12 Regarding prejudice, the district court found that because the motion was made pre-trial Sonoda would not be hindered in presenting his evidence to the factfinder. We agree and therefore affirm the district court's decision to allow withdrawal of the admissions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b).