Melton v. Regional Center of the East Bay, Inc.

Background

Selena Melton served RCEB with requests for admission on May 16, 2023. Request for Admission 61 asked RCEB to admit that, before July 2022, neither RCEB nor Arleen’s had arranged for an American Sign Language interpreter for any of Melton’s medical visits. Request for Admission 62 asked RCEB to admit that it knew, before July 2022, that Arleen’s had not arranged for an interpreter for those visits. RCEB admitted both requests.

On June 10, 2024, RCEB received copies of Melton’s medical records. RCEB later argued that the records showed its admissions were untrue. About 10 months after receiving the records, and six days before the close of fact discovery, RCEB filed a joint discovery letter brief asking to withdraw the admissions. Fact discovery had since closed.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(b) permits a court to allow a party to withdraw or amend an admission if doing so would promote presentation of the case’s merits and would not prejudice the other party in maintaining or defending the action on the merits.

Court’s analysis

The court held that RCEB’s motion failed both requirements. It explained that “ASL interpreter,” even though the requests did not define the term, implied both effective interpretation and the provision of interpretation during the appointment. Someone who merely knew a few words in ASL, or who knew ASL but did not interpret, would not necessarily be an ASL interpreter.

The medical records did not resolve whether interpreters had been provided. The records generally stated that Melton was accompanied by staff from Arlene’s and that she was mute but signed with staff. Most records did not indicate whether signing occurred during the appointment. A few records showed that some signing occurred, but they did not establish whether the staff member could interpret effectively or whether interpretation covered a significant part of the appointment.

The court found that RCEB’s delay deprived Melton of the opportunity to conduct the discovery needed to develop the issue. It also found that RCEB’s explanation—that the delay resulted from a change in counsel and the current attorney’s failure to review the records earlier—was not good cause. The court noted that current employees might not be able to testify competently about the skills and training of staff members from many years earlier. Allowing withdrawal could therefore leave an evidentiary gap and allow RCEB to prevail on the issue by default because Melton bore the burden of proof.

The court distinguished a situation in which medical records conclusively proved that interpreters had been provided. Here, the records did not show that the admissions were untrue; instead, they showed that determining whether the accompanying staff acted as interpreters would be difficult, time-consuming, and uncertain, while Melton no longer had time to investigate the issue.

Rulings

Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson denied RCEB’s motion to withdraw the admissions. The court also granted the motion to seal at docket entry 220. The opinion does not state a separate disposition for docket entry 221.