Doe v. San Jose Unified School District Board

Background

Plaintiffs Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Elizabeth Sinclair, and Charlotte Klarke served requests for admissions on defendants Nancy Albarran, Herb Espirirtu, and Peter Glasser. Defendants did not respond on time, which they attributed to a calendaring error. They discovered the error on August 12, 2021, served responses, and later served amended responses on September 10, 2021.

Because the responses were not timely, the requests were treated as admitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. Defendants asked permission to withdraw those deemed admissions and amend their responses concerning Requests for Admissions Nos. 4–6, 18–20, 29, and 33.

The disputed requests concerned whether the student Fellowship of Christian Athletes groups permitted all students to attend meetings; whether three high schools would deny approval to groups whose student leaders had to affirm the organization’s statement of faith; whether the groups’ meetings were led by students; and whether the Pioneer student group was the only student group whose approval had been revoked during the prior five years.

Legal standard

Rule 36 generally treats a request for admission as admitted when the responding party does not timely serve an answer or objection. A court may allow a party to withdraw or amend an admission if doing so would promote presentation of the case’s merits and would not unfairly prejudice the requesting party’s ability to litigate the case. The rule gives the court discretion even when those requirements are met.

Court’s analysis

For Requests Nos. 18–20, the court found that changing the admissions would allow the parties to present evidence about whether the high schools would approve applications that had not yet been submitted and under procedures that had changed. The court found no improper prejudice from plaintiffs’ reliance on the admissions in briefing their preliminary-injunction motion because plaintiffs had already conducted substantial discovery and could obtain additional evidence before trial.

For Requests Nos. 4–6, the court found that changing the admissions would allow evidence about which students could attend which types of meetings, including the distinction between leadership meetings and other meetings. The court reached the same conclusion about the absence of qualifying prejudice.

For Request No. 29, the court found that changing the admission would allow the parties to present evidence about whether, and to what extent, students led Fellowship of Christian Athletes meetings. For Request No. 33, the court found that changing the admission would allow evidence about whether the Pioneer group was the only student group whose approval had been revoked during the prior five years, an issue connected to plaintiffs’ contention that defendants selectively enforced their policies. The court again found that plaintiffs’ reliance on the deemed admission did not constitute prejudice under Rule 36.

The court also rejected plaintiffs’ argument that defendants had not shown good cause for their delay. It found that defendants explained the calendaring error, promptly tried to correct it after discovering it, and had not acted in bad faith or engaged in misconduct warranting denial of the request.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ request to withdraw their deemed admissions to plaintiffs’ Requests for Admissions Nos. 4–6, 18–20, 29, and 33, and to amend their responses as reflected in the submitted document. The court expressly did not decide whether defendants’ objections to the requests were valid. Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi signed the order.