Mary Ann Bathe v. United States of America

Background

The plaintiffs seek relief under the Federal Tort Claims Act for Douglas Bathe’s wrongful death in a motor vehicle accident. According to the opinion, Douglas Bathe was driving an off-road utility vehicle when he turned left into the path of a Humvee driven by an Army employee who was attempting to pass him. The parties disputed whether the accident occurred at an intersection of two roads where passing was prohibited under California law.

The plaintiffs served Requests for Admission 30 and 36. Request 30 asked the United States to admit that, immediately before the incident, the decedent was attempting to turn left onto a publicly maintained road. Request 36 asked the United States to admit that the incident occurred at an intersection. The United States initially denied Request 30 and objected to Request 36, but later amended its responses to admit both requests. It subsequently served amended responses denying both requests.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(b), an admission is conclusively established unless the court permits the party to withdraw or amend it. The court may allow withdrawal or amendment when doing so would promote presentation of the case’s merits and would not prejudice the requesting party’s ability to litigate the case on the merits. The rule gives the court discretion even when both requirements are met.

Court’s analysis

The court found that allowing the United States to withdraw the admissions would promote presentation of the merits. The parties agreed that whether the accident occurred at an intersection affected the merits. The United States characterized the issue as central and argued that leaving the admissions in place would substantially resolve whether the Army driver was negligent. The plaintiffs acknowledged that the admissions would establish a presumption of negligence, although they said other evidence could rebut that presumption.

The court also found that withdrawal would not cause the type of trial prejudice addressed by Rule 36(b). The plaintiffs said they had relied on the admissions by deciding not to hire an additional expert in civil engineering, traffic studies, or roadway design. But at the hearing, they could not identify specific additional expert evidence they would have pursued because of the admissions. The court noted that the plaintiffs still had an opportunity to respond to the changed position before trial and before responding to the summary-judgment motion, and that they had examined government witnesses about the issue during depositions.

The court considered the parties’ arguments about the United States’ reason for the delay and the strength of its position, but concluded that those arguments did not change its assessment because the two Rule 36(b) requirements were satisfied.

Disposition

The court permitted the United States to withdraw its admissions to Requests for Admission 30 and 36 and to amend its answers. The order addressed the discovery dispute and did not resolve the underlying claims or the pending summary-judgment motion.