Gubanov v. Stanislaus County et al, No. 2:2014cv01731 - Document 40 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 04/07/2016 RECOMMENDING the 12/3/14 status (pretrial scheduling) order be MODIFIED and the discovery deadline EXTENDED for the limited purpose of resolving plaintiff's motion to withdraw admissions and GRANTING 32 Motion to be Relieved from Deemed Admissions. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections due within 7 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Jackson, T)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Gubanov v. Stanislaus County et al Doc. 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EVGENIY GUBANOV, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:14-cv-1731-JAM-EFB Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS STANISLAUS COUNTY, et al., Defendants. 16 17 This case was before the court on April 6, 2016, for hearing on plaintiff’s motion to be 18 relieved from deemed admissions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 36. ECF No. 32. Attorney Julia Swanson 19 appeared on behalf of plaintiff; attorney Dan Farrar appeared on behalf of defendants. For the 20 reasons stated on the record, and as explained in further detail below, it is recommended that the 21 court’s scheduling order be modified for the limited purpose of resolving the instant motion and 22 that plaintiff’s motion be granted. 23 On December 22, 2015, defendants served plaintiff requests for admissions. Declaration 24 of Julia Swanson (“Swanson Decl.”) (ECF No. 33 at 8-9) ¶ 3. On January 25, 2016, the day 25 plaintiff’s responses were due, plaintiff’s counsel was in trial and was unable to mail timely 26 responses. Id. The next day, January 26, Ms. Swanson was informed that defendants’ counsel 27 had left for the day. Mr. Swanson emailed defendants’ counsel and requested a two-week 28 extension of time to provide responses. Id. ¶ 4. Two days later, on January 28, defendants 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 responded to plaintiff’s email, denying the request for an extension of time. Id. Plaintiff’s 2 counsel subsequently emailed defendants’ counsel requesting an agreement to serve responses by 3 email. Id. Plaintiff’s counsel attached the discovery responses to that email. Id. In his response 4 to the email, “Defendants’ counsel cordially agreed to email service.” Id. 5 Nonetheless, defense counsel now asserts that the request for admissions are deemed 6 admitted. On March 22, 2016, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which is noticed 7 for hearing before the assigned district judge on April 19, 2016. ECF No. 30. That motion relies, 8 at least in part, on the alleged deemed admissions. See ECF No. 30-1 at 2, 6, 7. The following 9 day, plaintiff filed the instant motion to withdraw his admissions.1 10 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 36(b) provides that “[a] matter admitted under 11 this rule is conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be 12 withdrawn or amended.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b). Whether a party is entitled to relief in the form of 13 withdrawal or amendment of responses to requests for admissions lies within the discretion of the 14 district court. Conlon v. United States, 474 F.3d 616, 621 (9th Cir. 2007). A party may withdraw 15 or amend an admission if the court finds (1) that withdrawal will aid in presenting the merits of 16 the case, and (2) no substantial prejudice to the party who requested the admission will result 17 from allowing the admission to be withdrawn or amended. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b); see Conlon, 474 18 F.3d at 625 (court must consider both factors in deciding motion to withdraw or amend). 19 Here, the first prong is satisfied. The request for admissions at issue essentially requests 20 plaintiff to admit that there is no basis for his claims. See ECF No. 33 at 7-8. Plaintiff is 21 requested to admit that he has no factual basis to support his claim that defendants are liable for 22 the injuries alleged in the complaint. Id., RFA Nos. 1, 2, 3. The requests go to the core of 23 plaintiff’s claims and if the admissions are not withdrawn, the case would be decided on a 24 procedural technicality and not on the underlying merits of the case. 25 1 26 27 28 The motion was originally filed before the assigned district judge in violation of Local Rule 302(c). After the original hearing date was vacated, plaintiff filed an application for an order shortening time, requesting that the undersigned hear the matter on April 6, 2016, as that was the only law an motion date available prior to the hearing on the motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 35. That request was granted. ECF No. 36. 2 1 As to the prejudice prong, the court focuses on the “the prejudice that the nonmoving 2 party would suffer at trial.” Conlon, 474 F.3d at 623-24 (stating additionally that “prejudice must 3 relate to the difficulty a party may face in proving its case at trial”). The party who relies upon 4 the deemed admissions has the burden of proving prejudice. Id. at 622. Here, defendants have 5 failed to demonstrate any prejudice. Indeed, defendants’ opposition, rather than addressing the 6 merits of plaintiff’s motion, argues that plaintiff’s motion should be denied because it is untimely 7 under the court’s scheduling order. ECF No. 38. 8 9 The court’s scheduling order provides that all discovery shall be completed by February 19, 2016. ECF No. 12 at 3. The order further provides that the term “‘completed’ means that all 10 discovery shall have been conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes 11 relative to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order if necessary, where discovery 12 has been ordered, the order has been complied with.” Id. 13 The discovery deadline has passed. Assuming that the instant motion is subject to that 14 deadline rather than dispositive motion deadline, the court nonetheless finds good cause to extend 15 the discovery deadline for the limited purpose of resolving the instant discovery dispute.2 See 16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s 17 consent.”). After plaintiff’s counsel was notified that defendants would not agree to a two-week 18 extension of time, counsel promptly emailed plaintiff’s discovery responses and requested that 19 email service be accepted. Swanson Decl. ¶ 4. According to plaintiff, “Defendants’ counsel 20 cordially agreed to email service.” Id. It was not until defendants moved for summary judgment 21 that plaintiff’s counsel became aware that defendants considered the admissions untimely and 22 would rely on them in moving for summary judgment. ECF No. 32 at 3. Although plaintiff 23 could have moved to withdraw the admissions after defendant declined her request for an 24 extension of time, given that defendants subsequently agreed to email service, it was reasonable 25 26 27 28 2 The court notes that it is not entirely clear whether the instant motion is untimely under the court’s scheduling order. The motion differs from the typical discovery dispute concerning whether something is or is not discoverable. Here, the only issue is whether the admissions should be set aside, and regardless of the outcome no further discovery would be permitted. However, in either case, the court recommends that the scheduling order be modified to permit resolution of this motion. 3 1 for plaintiff to assume that defendants would treat the responses as timely. As plaintiff did not 2 learn that defendants considered the admissions untimely after the close of discovery, good cause 3 exists to modify the scheduling order. 4 More significantly, modifying the scheduling order to allow the admissions to be 5 withdrawn would facilitate the strong public policy favoring resolution of cases on the merits. 6 See Doctors Medical Center of Modesto, Inc. v. Principal Life Ins. Co., 2011 WL 831421, at *3 7 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2011) (“The Ninth Circuit has repeatedly held, in a variety of procedural 8 contexts, that the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits strongly counsels 9 against dismissal of a case or sanctions that are ultimately case-terminating.”) (citing In re 10 Phenylpropanolamine Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006)). Thus, good 11 cause exists to modify the scheduling order. 12 Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 13 1. The December 3, 2014 status (pretrial scheduling) order be modified and the discovery 14 deadline extended for the limited purpose of resolving plaintiff’s motion to withdraw admissions; 15 and 16 17 18 2. Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw his admission be granted (ECF No. 32) and the deemed admissions be set aside. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 19 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within seven days after 20 being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with 21 the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 22 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the 23 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 24 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 25 DATED: April 7, 2016. 26 27 28 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
