United States District Court, D. Colorado
JANET CHI, individually and on behalf of minor child, J.C., DAVID CHI, individually and on behalf of minor child, J.C., WEN-CHENG CHI, SHIU-SHIA WU, SHASHI RAJYAGOR, individually and on behalf of minor children, S.R. and A.R., DIVYESH RAJYAGOR, individually and on behalf of minor children, S.R.and A.R., NEAL LOY, BRIENNE LOY, ANTERIO KITTRELL, and JOELLA KITTRELL, Plaintiffs,
v.
WEYERHAUSER COMPANY, and WEYERHAUSER NR COMPANY, Defendants.
ORDER
MICHAEL E. HEGARTY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before
the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Withdraw Deemed
Admissions and for Leave to Serve Responses [filed
January 11, 2019; ECF No. 147]. The Court heard
this matter in part on August 28, 2018. ECF No. 106. At that
time, Plaintiffs' counsel essentially conceded that
Plaintiffs submitted untimely responses to
Defendant's[1] requests for admissions
(“RFAs”) served on Plaintiffs in this case. Tr.
4: 18-25, 5: 1-13, 17-cv-02224-PAB-MEH, ECF No. 98. The Court
concluded that, since the parties had insufficient time to
confer on the responses submitted, it was premature to rule
on whether the challenged requests could be deemed admitted.
Id. 16: 3-7, 21-24. The Court set the matter for a
further conference on September 10, 2018; however, the
parties alerted the Court that “they ha[d] made
progress in resolving their discovery dispute” and
requested that the conference be vacated. ECF No. 110. The
present motion followed four months later.
Plaintiffs
contend that while they “failed to respond to the RFAs
within 30 days” as set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a), the
rule also permits withdrawal of deemed admissions if no
prejudice inures to the producing party. ECF No. 147 at 2-3.
Plaintiffs assert that, since the deemed admissions would
have a “catastrophic” effect on the
Plaintiffs' claims and would cause no prejudice to
Defendant here, where discovery has not closed and no trial
date has been set, the Court should grant their request to
withdraw the deemed admissions. Id.
Defendant
counters that it would, in fact, suffer prejudice by
withdrawal of the admissions in that Plaintiffs have provided
contradictory and “confusing” discovery
responses, but deeming the requests concerning
Plaintiffs' damages admitted would alleviate any
confusion and permit Defendant to prepare its expert reports
within the current deadline. ECF No. 154 at 6-8. In addition,
Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs overstate the effect of
deeming the requests admitted, since the admissions simply
“narrow the scope of damages” to which the
Plaintiffs are purportedly entitled rather than destroy their
claims altogether. Id. at 4-5.
Plaintiffs
reply that they had submitted supplemental responses on
February 1, 2019, which should alleviate any concerns raised
by Defendant. ECF No. 159 at 2. They also contend that
deeming admitted RFA 6 served on the Kittrells would
“foreclose” “approximately 100% of their
claimed damages”;[2] RFAs 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 served on David
and Janet Chi would “severely and unjustly reduce[]
their damages; RFA 3 served on Wen-Cheng Chi would result in
“injustice”; RFAs 2, 3, and 5 served on Shiu-Shia
Wu and “J.C.”would result in
“injustice”; and, RFAs 2, 3, 4, and 5 served on
the Loys would “foreclose” “25% of their
economic damages” as well as their damages for physical
and emotional injuries. Id. at 2-3.
Rule 36
provides that “[a] party may serve upon any other party
a written request to admit” the truth of certain
matters. Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a)(1). If the receiving party fails
to respond to the request within 30 days, or within such
other time as the court may allow, the matter is deemed
admitted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a)(3).
Once a
matter is admitted, it “is conclusively established
unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be
withdrawn or amended.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(b). The court
may permit such 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.; see also Raiser v. Utah
Cnty., 409 F.3d 1243, 1246 (10th Cir. 2005). The first
part of the test “emphasizes the importance of having
the action resolved on the merits and is satisfied when
upholding the admissions would practically eliminate any
presentation of the merits of the case.”
Raiser, 409 F.3d at 1246 (quoting Perez v.
Miami-Daid Cnty., 297 F.3d 1255, 1266 (11th Cir.2002)).
Regarding the second part of the test, “[m]ere
inconvenience does not constitute prejudice.”
Id. Rather, the prejudice “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. (quoting
Hadley v. United States, 45 F.3d 1345, 1348 (9th
Cir.1995)).
While
both parties allege delay and other discovery
“obstacles” against each other, the Court finds,
in the end, that justice requires presentation of the merits
of the claims in this case. With that said, the Court
expresses its bewilderment that Plaintiffs failed to heed its
admonition at the August 28, 2018 conference regarding the
necessity to respond immediately to notice of a missed
deadline, particularly in seeking leave to extend such
deadline or, in this case, to seek withdrawal of deemed
admissions. ECF No. 98, 6: 19-25, 7: 1-6; 9: 4-20. As stated
above, the present motion was filed four months after the
parties notified the Court they had essentially resolved the
dispute and, although Defendant raised the timing of this
motion in its response brief, Plaintiffs still failed to
explain their inaction.
Nevertheless,
and in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(b), the Court finds no
prejudice will inure to Defendant by withdrawing deemed
admissions RFA 6 served on the Kittrells; RFAs 1, 2, 3, 5,
and 6 served on David and Janet Chi; RFA 3 served on
Wen-Cheng Chi; RFAs 2, 3, and 5 served on Shiu-Shia Wu and
“J.C.”; and, RFAs 2, 3, 4, and 5 served on the
Loys. First, Defendant has had the opportunity to depose the
Plaintiffs. Second, Defendant has neither rebutted the fact
that Plaintiffs served supplemental responses in early
February nor challenged such responses as insufficient. And,
third, the March 18, 2019 expert witness deadline has come
and gone with no word from Defendant as to whether it was
unable to effectively disclose its expert witness(es). The
discovery deadline is still almost two months away and, thus,
sufficient time remains for any discovery into the requests
for admission, if necessary. See Raiser, 409 F.3d at
1246 (prejudice results from the difficulty a party may face
in proving its case). The Court presumes, based on
Defendant's silence since its February 1, 2019 response,
that it will require no additional time for discovery, but
the Court would entertain any well-supported request.
In sum,
the Court finds that withdrawal of deemed admissions 1-6
served on Borgmann and deemed admission 3 served on M.H. will
promote the presentation of the merits of Plaintiffs'
claims in this case. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion to
Withdraw Deemed Admissions and for Leave to Serve Responses
[filed January 11, 2019; ECF No. 147] is
granted as set forth herein.
SO
ORDERED.
---------
Notes:
[1]At all relevant times, including the
briefing of this matter, Weyerhauser Company was the only
named ...