Opinion ID: 1186363
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Does Withdrawal of the Admissions Subserve Presentation of the Case on the Merits?

Text: Utah case law does not provide a clearly articulated standard for determining when amendment or withdrawal of admissions would serve the presentation of the merits of an action. In Brunetti, 854 P.2d at 558-59, the trial court had determined that [o]n the basis of the defendant's good faith efforts to respond to the requests for admission and his reasonable oversight as to when his response was required, the merits of the action would be undermined unless the admissions were withdrawn. While the court of appeals upheld this decision, it is difficult to see how an explanation of the movant's reasons for delay is relevant to the presentation of the merits, [3] although these proffered excuses showing good cause for delay may influence a judge in the exercise of discretion. A more helpful test is suggested in a footnote to Brunetti in which the court of appeals stated, This determination [that the merits of the action would be undermined unless the admissions were withdrawn] was additionally supported by the fact that [the plaintiff] was unable to prove the truth of the requested admissions at trial. Id. at 559 n. 1. Clearly if the admissions are untrue, allowing amendment or withdrawal would serve as a presentation of the merits of an action. However, the burden of showing the truth or falsity of admissions should not, as the Brunetti court seems to imply, fall on the party that obtained the admissions but rather on the party seeking to amend or withdraw them. The point of an admission is to excuse the party obtaining it from introducing evidence on the matter. If admissions are false, the party that admitted the false matters  whether by response or by operation of rule 36(a)  bears the burden of proof on the matter. Having concluded that the burden falls on the party moving for amendment, we are still faced with the question of just how that burden may be met. Monarch argues that on the basis of federal court interpretations of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the presentation of the merits of an action is served by amending admissions anytime the merits are contested. Clark v. City of Munster, 115 F.R.D. 609, 612 (N.D.Ind.1987). [4] Arguing from this authority, Monarch submits that its own unsworn denial of the matters admitted against it should suffice to convince the court that a presentation of the merits would be served by amendment of its admissions. However, the time to deny admissions is within thirty days of receiving the request for admissions. Once these matters have been admitted against a party, something more than a bare denial is required to convince the court that the admissions should be withdrawn or amended and that the merits of the matter should be argued in court. The test under rule 36(b) may therefore be articulated as follows: To show that a presentation of the merits of an action would be served by amendment or withdrawal of an admission, the party seeking amendment or withdrawal must (1) show that the matters deemed admitted against it are relevant to the merits of the underlying cause of action, and (2) introduce some evidence by affidavit or otherwise of specific facts indicating that the matters deemed admitted against it are in fact untrue. We first address the question of the relevance of the admissions to the merits. Of all the requests for admission that were before the trial court, only request No. 2  that Monarch had knowledge that the automobile in question had been submerged in water prior to the sale  is briefed on appeal. Monarch concedes that admission No. 2, ... would, if admitted, establish one of the most important factual questions presented in the lawsuit. Although the amended complaint specifically charges only Llavina and not Monarch with knowledge of the Porsche's prior history, Llavina's knowledge would be imputed to Monarch and support the complaint's allegations against it of devious acts and fraudulent representations. Therefore, even under the amended complaint, admission No. 2 is clearly relevant to the merits. We turn next to the second part of the test. Monarch's brief states that in its motion for leave to withdraw or amend answers to request for admissions, defendant provided numerous arguments to the trial court, all of which are suggestive that presentation of the lawsuit on the merits would be subserved by allowing the admissions to be amended. However, while the motion disputes the admissions which Monarch wishes to deny, it lacks any sort of detailed articulation of such arguments [5] and is entirely devoid of evidence of specific facts contradicting the admissions. The record is devoid of any sworn statement that admission No. 2 is untrue. Instead, both the brief and the motion focus almost exclusively on the second-tier requirement that the nonmoving party fails to show prejudice from the amendment or withdrawal of the admissions. Therefore, we find that while Monarch has shown that its knowledge of the prior history of the car is relevant to the merits, it has failed to come forward with evidence of specific facts indicating that the matters deemed admitted against it are in fact untrue. Consequently, Monarch has not established that the presentation of the case on the merits would be subserved by the withdrawal or amendment of the admissions.