Fodera, Jr. v. Equinox Holdings, Inc.

Background

Equinox sought permission to withdraw admissions that were automatically deemed admitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. The admissions concerned whether two letters sent by Equinox’s counsel to plaintiffs’ counsel were genuine and whether the class data in those letters was accurate. The data included information about class-member numbers, pay periods, hours worked, employee shifts, group fitness classes, and personal training.

Equinox said it later learned that some of the letter data was inaccurate and provided updated information in verified interrogatory responses. Requests to admit were due on December 20, 2021, but Equinox served objections on December 23 because of a miscommunication between its counsel and a staff member. Because the responses were late, the matters were automatically admitted under Rule 36.

The plaintiffs used the letter data in their motion for class certification. Equinox objected and moved to withdraw the admissions.

Legal standard

Rule 36 generally makes an unanswered request for admission conclusively established. Under Rule 36(b), a court may allow an admission to be withdrawn or amended if doing so would promote presentation of the action’s merits and would not prejudice the requesting party’s ability to maintain or defend the case on the merits. The court said it had to consider both factors.

Court’s reasoning

The plaintiffs argued that withdrawing the admissions would not promote consideration of the merits because the information concerned class data rather than liability admissions. The court rejected that argument. It explained that the plaintiffs’ liability theory depended in significant part on whether Equinox required employees to work off the clock or denied legally required meal and rest breaks. Data about shifts and hours worked, compared with pay, could support or disprove that theory.

The court also found that the plaintiffs had not shown prejudice. Equinox served its objections only three days late and later updated the underlying data in other responses, which the plaintiffs did not contest. The plaintiffs did not explain how withdrawal would impair their ability to prove their claims at trial, which was scheduled to occur eight months later. The court said that focusing on the short delay did not satisfy the plaintiffs’ burden to show prejudice.

Disposition

The court granted Equinox’s motion to withdraw the deemed admissions. It reasoned that allowing the parties to rely on inaccurate data would not further Rule 36’s goals of truth-seeking and efficiency.