Michele Metcalf v. Transperfect Global Inc.

Background

Plaintiffs Michele Metcalf and Hannah Lawson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, sought permission to withdraw and amend their response to Defendant Transperfect Translations International Inc.’s Request for Admission No. 4. Plaintiffs argued that Defendant wanted to distort or use their words against them. Defendant opposed the request, arguing that changing the admission would not promote presentation of the case’s merits and would prejudice Defendant.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(b), a matter admitted in response to a request for admission is conclusively established unless the court permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended. The court may allow a change if doing so would promote presentation of the merits and would not prejudice the requesting party in maintaining or defending the action on the merits. The decision remains within the court’s discretion.

Court’s reasoning

The court concluded that Plaintiffs had not satisfied Rule 36(b). Plaintiffs conceded that their admission was factually true and that they did not believe it carried much weight on the merits. The court determined that the admission did not prevent Plaintiffs from arguing against Defendant’s position concerning the fluctuating workweek doctrine and its application to the case.

The court also distinguished cases in which amendments had been allowed because the admissions were inaccurate, involved disputed factual issues, conflicted with other sworn responses, or were challenged before discovery ended. Here, fact discovery had closed almost two months earlier, and reopening discovery would impose unnecessary burden and expense.

Disposition

Judge Katharine H. Parker denied Plaintiffs’ letter motion seeking leave to withdraw and amend Response No. 4. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 429.