Opinion ID: 2359150
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Order Allowing Withdrawal of Admissions

Text: [¶ 8] The Steigers contend the Association should not have been allowed to withdraw its admissions and file responses. They assert the Association did not request an order allowing withdrawal for over two years and then did so after this Court held in Steiger I that the admission was conclusively established. They contend the district court's order allowing the Association to withdraw the admissions violated W.R.C.P. 6(b), which allows a court to enlarge the time for filing motions only when the request is made before the time expires or, when a motion is made after the time has expired, upon a showing of excusable neglect. Because the Association did not request an order allowing it to withdraw the admissions before the time for responding expired and did not show excusable neglect for its late request, the Steigers maintain the district court did not have the authority to allow the withdrawal. The Steigers further assert this Court's ruling in Steiger I that the admissions were conclusively established prevented the district court from reopening the issue by allowing the Association to withdraw the admissions. They argue Hodges v. Lewis & Lewis, Inc., 2005 WY 134, 121 P.3d 138 (Wyo. 2005), the case the Association relied upon in requesting the withdrawal, does not support allowing the withdrawal in this case because the party seeking the withdrawal in Hodges acted promptly and not, as in this case, over two years later and after an appeal. [¶ 9] District courts have broad discretion to manage pretrial discovery matters. Id., ¶ 11, 121 P.3d at 142. Therefore, we review a district court's decision on a motion to withdraw or amend admissions under W.R.C.P. 36(b) for abuse of discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs when a court acts in a manner which exceeds the bounds of reason under the circumstances. Id., ¶ 11, 121 P.3d at 143. In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether or not the court could reasonably conclude as it did. Id. [¶ 10] W.R.C.P. 36(a), governing requests for admission, provides in pertinent part as follows: (a) Request for admission.  A party may serve upon any other party a written request for the admission . . . of the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b) [1] . . . . The matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after service of the request, or within such shorter or longer time as the court may allow, the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a written answer or objection addressed to the matter . . . . (b) Effect of admission.  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. (Footnote added.) [¶ 11] The Steigers served their request for admissions on August 19, 2004. The Association did not serve written answers to the requests until September 24, 2004, and there is no indication the district court allowed the Association additional time to serve its answers. Thus, in Steiger I, ¶ 4, 149 P.3d at 736, this Court held, [T]he [Association] has admitted, and it is therefore conclusively established, that any action the Board might have taken to authorize this suit was invalid. Without proper authorization, the [Association] lacked capacity to prosecute the instant suit. [¶ 12] On remand to the district court, the Association filed its motion for an order allowing it to withdraw its admissions and serve responses. The motion was filed on March 27, 2007, two and a half years after the Steigers served the request for admissions. In its motion, the Association cited the provision in W.R.C.P. 36(b) allowing the court to permit withdrawal or amendment of admissions and asserted that its original responses to the eighty-eight requests for admission, which it served within a week after the thirty day time period, were late because of the volume of the Steigers' discovery requests. After considering the parties' respective arguments, the district court granted the motion, allowing the Association to withdraw its admissions and serve responses. [¶ 13] The Steigers contend the order allowing the withdrawal is contrary to the authorization in W.R.C.P. 6(b) allowing the district court to enlarge the time prescribed in other rules only when the request is made before expiration of the period prescribed or when the request is made after expiration of the time and excusable neglect is shown for the failure to act within the time prescribed. By permitting the Association to respond to the requests when they did not request more time within the thirty day period or show excusable neglect, the Steigers assert the district court's order effectively enlarging the time for serving responses violated Rule 6. [¶ 14] The difficulty with the Steigers' argument is that it requires us to limit the language in Rule 36(b) expressly authorizing the district court to permit withdrawal or amendment of admissions when the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved and the party who obtained the admission fails to satisfy the court that withdrawal or amendment will prejudice them. Given that Rule 36(b) expressly authorizes the district court to permit withdrawal under specified circumstances, we will not read language from Rule 6 to limit the authority granted under Rule 36(b). [¶ 15] The Steigers also contend that Hodges does not support the district court's order. In that case, Ms. Hodges served requests asking Lewis to admit that she did not contribute to her personal injuries. Lewis missed the deadline for responding and was deemed to have admitted the request. Prior to trial, the district court allowed Lewis to amend its admissions to deny the request. [¶ 16] On appeal, Ms. Hodges claimed the district court erred in allowing the amendment. We applied the two-part test for withdrawing or amending admissions under Rule 36(b) requiring, first, that the moving party show that allowing the withdrawal will promote presentation of the merits of the case and, second, that the objecting party show that withdrawal will prejudice him in maintaining his defense. Addressing the first prong, we said: The purpose of Rule 36 is to expedite the trial and to relieve the parties of the cost of proving facts that will not be disputed at trial. Perez v. Miami-Dade County, 297 F.3d 1255, 1265 (11th Cir. 2002) quoting 8A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2252 (2d ed.1994). The first factor of the Rule 36(b) test emphasizes the importance of having actions resolved on the merits rather than as a result of a technical error. Raiser, 409 F.3d at 1246; Perez, 297 F.3d at 1266. This requirement [for establishing that withdrawal should be permitted] is satisfied when it is shown that upholding the admissions would practically eliminate any presentation of the merits of the case. Id. Thus, there is a distinct preference in the rule for ascertaining the truth and deciding the case on its merits. Perez, 297 F.3d at 1266. Hodges, ¶ 12, 121 P.3d at 143. We further quoted the Eleventh Circuit for the following principles: When a party uses the rule to establish uncontested facts and to narrow the issues for trial, then the rule functions properly. When a party like Perez, however, uses the rule to harass the other side or, as in this case, with the wild-eyed hope that the other side will fail to answer and therefore admit essential elements (that the party has already denied in its answer), the rule's time-saving function ceases; the rule instead becomes a weapon, dragging out the litigation and wasting valuable resources. Id., ¶ 13, 121 P.3d at 143, quoting Perez, 297 F.3d at 1268. [¶ 17] Applying the first part of the test in Hodges, we concluded that allowing Lewis to amend its response to the request asking it to admit that Ms. Hodges did not contribute to her injuries furthered presentation of the merits of the controversy. Id. Noting that Lewis had filed an answer denying Ms. Hodges' claim that it was negligent and expressly alleging that she was more than fifty percent at fault for her injuries, we concluded that allowing the admission to stand essentially would have decided that Lewis breached a duty owed to Ms. Hodges, a key element of her negligence claim, while permitting the parties to present evidence of fault advanced the search for the truth and promoted a correct legal ruling. Id. [¶ 18] Addressing the second part of the Rule 36(b) test, we said the prejudice contemplated by the rule is not simply that a party who obtained the admission now has to convince the jury of its truth. Rather, the party must show that it will have difficulty proving its case if withdrawal is allowed. We cited as an example a situation where key witnesses are unavailable to testify about the matter initially deemed admitted. We also said the amount of time the party seeking to uphold the admission has relied upon it may be important in determining prejudice. Id., ¶ 14, 121 P.3d at 143. [¶ 19] Applying the prejudice prong of the rule in Hodges, we concluded Ms. Hodges had not shown the required prejudice. We said: Allowing Lewis to withdraw its admission simply replaced the burden of proof upon the plaintiff  where, in the pursuit of truth, it belonged. Ms. Hodges did not rely on the admission for a substantial period of time. . . . Moreover, the district court remedied any prejudice which inured to Ms. Hodges as a result of relying on the admission when it granted her request for a continuance of the trial to allow her additional time to prepare. Id., ¶ 15, 121 P.3d at 144. [¶ 20] As in Hodges, we conclude that allowing the Association to withdraw its admission and serve its response promoted presentation of the merits of the controversy. Denying the motion would have prevented presentation of the case. Allowing the withdrawal simply placed the burden back where it belonged on the Association to prove it was authorized to bring the enforcement action. [¶ 21] The Steigers maintain their case is distinguishable from Hodges in that they relied on the admission for two and a half years and the amount of time a party relies on an admission is a key factor in showing prejudice. We said in Hodges that the amount of time a party relies on an admission may be an important factor in determining prejudice. Under the facts of this case, however, we are not persuaded that the reliance factor outweighs the preference for deciding a controversy on its merits. Much of the time that passed between the deemed admission and the Association's request to withdraw it resulted from the Steigers' appeal to this Court from the district court's summary judgment order, time that is not attributable to any action or inaction on the Association's part. Within two months of this Court's February 1, 2007, mandate in Steiger I, the Association filed its motion to withdraw its admission. The district court ruled on the motion two and a half months before trial and it does not appear from the record that the Steigers sought a continuance of the trial date on the basis that they had relied on the admission and needed more time to prepare as a result. [2] Even if the Steigers did seek a continuance on those grounds, the record does not indicate any such reliance left them unprepared for trial. To the contrary, the record suggests the Steigers were well prepared for trial and had spent untold hours preparing to defend against the Association's claim. The district court could reasonably have concluded as it did that allowing withdrawal of the admission would further resolution of the controversy on the merits and not prejudice the Steigers. We find no abuse of discretion in the order granting the motion.