Dekker v. Vivint Solar, Inc.

Background

This unfair-business-practices class action involved 82 requests for admission served by Vivint Solar Inc., in its various corporate forms, on representative plaintiff Gerrie Dekker. Dekker did not answer or object by the deadline. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(3), unanswered requests for admission are automatically treated as admitted.

Dekker later served untimely answers and objections to 81 of the 82 requests and sought permission to amend the deemed admissions. Her counsel attributed the failure to an oversight: the legal team focused on responding to special interrogatories and failed to serve responses to the requests for admission. Vivint opposed the requested relief, arguing in part that it had relied on the admissions when preparing its expert evidence and that changing them would require it to defend a different case.

Legal standard

Rule 36(b) allows a district court to permit withdrawal or amendment of an admission when two conditions are met: doing so would help present the case on its merits, and the party that obtained the admission cannot show prejudice in maintaining its case or defense on the merits. The court may also consider factors such as whether the delay had good cause and whether the moving party appears to have a strong case.

Court’s analysis

Some proposed amended responses already admitted the matters in RFA Nos. 1, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 28, 34, 35, 37, 39, 48, and 51, so the request to amend those responses was moot. Vivint had withdrawn RFA Nos. 10 and 12. The court therefore considered the remaining requests.

The court permitted amendment of RFA Nos. 6, 11, 15, 25, 27, 29, 41, 44, 46, 56, 57, 58, 60, and 62. It found that treating those requests as conclusively admitted would interfere with deciding central disputed issues, including the validity of a liquidated-damages provision under California law, the estimated value of a typical Vivint Solar energy system, and whether Dekker suffered economic harm. The court also noted that some admissions could create an issue concerning Dekker’s standing to sue in federal court.

The court rejected Vivint’s argument that amendment would unfairly force it to defend a different case. It found that Vivint did not face a sudden need to gather new evidence and that Dekker had presented evidence suggesting that the requested admissions might not be true. The court also found that Dekker’s failure to respond appeared to be a mistaken oversight rather than intentional gamesmanship.

The court nevertheless recognized that amendment could cause some prejudice because Vivint said it had relied on the admissions when deciding not to retain another expert or make additional expert disclosures. To address that potential prejudice, the court gave Vivint three weeks to submit a revised expert report. The court did not make a final decision about whether testimony from an earlier expert would be admissible.

The court did not permit amendment of the remaining specified requests: RFA Nos. 2–5, 7–9, 19, 20, 23, 24, 26, 30–33, 36, 38, 40, 42, 43, 45, 47, 49, 50, 55, 59, 61, and 63–82. It found those requests insufficiently central to the case and denied leave to amend them.

Disposition

The motion to amend the admissions was granted in part and denied in part. Amendment was granted for the 14 listed requests and denied for the remaining listed requests. Vivint was given three weeks to disclose a revised expert report. The trial was continued to September 26, and the final pretrial conference was reset to September 21.