Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 523

Filed 05/07/12 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:13919

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. Title SACV 11-0485 AG (AJWx) LISA LIBERI, et al. v. ORLY TAITZ, et al. Date May 7, 2012

Present: The Honorable Lisa Bredahl Deputy Clerk

ANDREW J. GUILFORD Not Present Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Proceedings:

[IN CHAMBERS] ORDER GRANTING MOTION BY DEFENDANTS TODD SANKEY AND THE SANKEY FIRM, INC. TO WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS

Defendants Todd Sankey and The Sankey Firm, Inc. (Todd Sankey Defendants) filed a Motion to Withdraw Admissions (Motion) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(b). Plaintiffs oppose. The Court notes that the upcoming Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiffs relies heavily on the Todd Sankey Defendants Admissions. (Dkt. No. 480). The Court VACATES the Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court GRANTS the Motion. BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed requests for admission on the Todd Sankey Defendants. The Todd Sankey Defendants did not timely respond. The Todd Sankey Defendants became aware of this omission when they learned that the Court granted leave for Plaintiffs to file a motion for summary judgment against them.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 4

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 523

Filed 05/07/12 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:13920

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. Title SACV 11-0485 AG (AJWx) LISA LIBERI, et al. v. ORLY TAITZ, et al. Date May 7, 2012

After viewing that order, counsel for the Todd Sankey Defendants explained the error to Plaintiffs, and served amended discovery responses. In the amended discovery responses, only four of the twenty-five responses are properly admitted. The four admissions do not appear to materially support Plaintiffs case. On March 9, 2012, the Court granted Todd Sankey Defendants leave to file this Motion. On March 22, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment against the Todd Sankey Defendants. The Motion for Summary Judgment is largely based on the admissions. LEGAL STANDARD Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(b), A matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended. Subject to Rule 16(e), the court may permit 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. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b). The first half of the test in Rule 36(b) is satisfied when upholding the admissions would practically eliminate any presentation of the merits of this case. Conlon v. U.S., 474 F.3d 616, 622 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Hadley v. U.S., 45 F.3d 1345, 1348 (9th Cir. 1995). In applying the second part of this test, district courts should focus on the prejudice that the nonmoving party would suffer at trial. Id. Thus, the prejudice contemplated by Rule 36(b) is not simply that the party who obtained the admission will now have to convince the factfinder of its truth. Hadley v. U.S. 45 F.3d 1345, 1348 (9th
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 2 of 4

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 523

Filed 05/07/12 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:13921

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. Title SACV 11-0485 AG (AJWx) LISA LIBERI, et al. v. ORLY TAITZ, et al. Date May 7, 2012

Cir.1995) (quoting Brook Village North Assoc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 686 F.2d 66, 70 (1st Cir.1982)) Rule 36 serves two important goals: truthseeking in litigation and efficiency in dispensing justice. Id. A court must consider both goals before ruling on a motion to withdraw. Id. Thus, a courts discretion [in applying Rule 36(b) should not be exercised in terms of the defaulting partys excuses, but in terms of the effect upon the litigation and prejudice to the resisting party. Jimena v. UBS AG Bank, Inc., 2011 WL 587309, at *3 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (permitting withdrawal because the admissions materially impair, if not emasculate, Defendants ability to defend and present the merits of its defense.) ANALYSIS It is evident to this Court that justice permits the Todd Sankey Defendants to withdraw their admissions, and file substantive answers to the requests. Both prongs of the Rule 36(b) test are met. First, upholding the admissions would prevent the Todd Sankey Defendants from presenting their case on the merits. The relevant admissions are the basis for Plaintiffs upcoming summary judgment motion. Were the Court to allow the admissions to stand, it might well result in an unwarranted grant of summary judgment. Second, the only notable prejudice to Plaintiffs if this Court grants this Motion is that Plaintiffs will be forced to convince the factfinder of [the] truth of their case. Hadley, 45 F.3d at 1348 (quoting Brook Village North Assoc., 686 F.2d at 70. This is not a proper basis for denying the Motion. Plaintiffs can not use default admissions as a short-cut to victory. They should prove their case on the merits. The exact reason why the admissions were late does not change this analysis. Jimena, 2011 WL 587309, at *3 (finding that a courts discretion [in applying Rule 36(b) should not be exercised in terms of the defaulting partys excuses, but in terms of the effect upon
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 3 of 4

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 523

Filed 05/07/12 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:13922

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. Title SACV 11-0485 AG (AJWx) LISA LIBERI, et al. v. ORLY TAITZ, et al. Date May 7, 2012

the litigation and prejudice to the resisting party. The Court GRANTS the Todd Sankey Defendants Motion. DISPOSITION The Court GRANTS the Todd Sankey Defendants Motion to withdraw their admissions. The Court notes that the upcoming Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiffs relies heavily on the Todd Sankey Defendants Admissions. (Dkt. No. 480). This Order largely moots that motion. It would be an inefficient use of the Courts time to rule on a Motion for Summary Judgment that is now outdated. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. There is no prejudice to Plaintiffs, because the Court recently vacated the pending trial dates, thus giving Plaintiffs time to refile a summary judgment Motion on other grounds, should any exist. (Dkt. No. 511.) The Court VACATES the Motion for Summary Judgment. If Plaintiffs wish to file another motion for summary judgment, they must request leave consistent with the standing order in this case. Plaintiffs must specify in this letter the exact basis for the summary judgment motion, to avoid further needless motion practice. Finally, the Court is troubled by the fact that the Todd Sankey Defendants, who did not bother to appear at the hearing for this Motion, have been late with their discovery responses. If Plaintiffs find it necessary to file a motion to compel, they may direct it to this Court rather than to the magistrate judge. As with all other motions, Plaintiffs must seek leave via letter request. : Initials of Preparer lmb 0

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 4 of 4