McEwen v. Granite Rock Company
- Edward Davila
- 5:21-cv-04982
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
McEwen v. Granite Rock, Judge Demarchi allowed Granite Rock to withdraw deemed admissions and ordered further discussion about discovery disputes.
Granite Rock Company may withdraw the deemed admissions. Charles McEwen must confer with Granite Rock about the company’s objections and answers, and any unresolved discovery disputes may later be presented to the court.
What happened
In McEwen v. Granite Rock Company, Granite Rock responded late to Charles McEwen’s 46 requests for admission. Because the responses were late, the requests were automatically treated as admitted, and McEwen argued that Granite Rock should not be allowed to change that result.
The court found that allowing Granite Rock to withdraw the admissions would let both sides present evidence on the case’s merits. It also found that McEwen had not shown prejudice and had conceded that his ability to develop evidence was not harmed. The court did not find bad faith sufficient to deny the request.
Judge Virginia K. Demarchi permitted Granite Rock to withdraw the deemed admissions. She ordered the parties to confer about Granite Rock’s objections and answers, with any remaining disputes to be presented to the court under its discovery procedures.
The detailed version
- McEwen v. Granite Rock Company · No. 5:21-cv-04982
- Edward Davila
- Oct. 18, 2022
Background
Charles McEwen served Granite Rock Company (GRC) 46 requests for admission on April 8, 2022. The parties agreed to three extensions of GRC’s response deadline, with the final deadline set for June 28, 2022. GRC’s counsel mistakenly believed that another extension had been agreed to, but GRC conceded that no such agreement existed. GRC served its responses on July 27, 2022—after McEwen had demanded responses by July 22.
GRC objected to every request but also provided an answer to each one, stating that the answers were subject to and did not waive the objections. GRC conceded that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a), the requests were deemed admitted because its responses were not timely. GRC asked to withdraw those admissions. McEwen opposed the request and argued alternatively that, if the admissions were withdrawn, GRC should have to respond without objections or qualifications.
Legal standard
Rule 36 provides that a request for admission is deemed admitted unless the responding party timely serves an answer or objection. An admission is conclusively established unless the court permits the party to withdraw or amend it. Under Rule 36(b), the court may allow withdrawal or amendment if doing so would promote presentation of the case’s merits and would not prejudice the requesting party’s ability to prove or defend the case. Even when those requirements are met, the decision is discretionary.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that the first Rule 36(b) requirement was satisfied because the requests were directly related to the merits of McEwen’s claims and leaving the admissions in place could prevent GRC from defending itself. Allowing the withdrawal would permit the parties to present evidence supporting their respective positions.
The court also concluded that McEwen had not shown prejudice. His opposition did not discuss prejudice, and during the hearing he conceded that his ability to develop the evidence needed to prove his claims had not been harmed.
The court considered McEwen’s argument that GRC acted in bad faith by seeking extensions and serving its responses late. Although GRC had not sufficiently justified some requests for extensions and did not explain why its responses were served 30 days after the agreed deadline, the court found that the record did not support a finding of bad faith. The court also determined that GRC’s assertion of objections in its proposed answers was not, by itself, a reason to deny withdrawal.
The court separately recognized that failing to object to discovery requests on time generally waives the objection. But it found that the parties’ dispute over GRC’s objections and substantive answers was not ready for decision. Some answers appeared not to fully respond to the requests, while others were clear and unqualified denials. The court also noted that some requests could have multiple interpretations or contained typographical errors.
Disposition
The court permitted GRC to withdraw its deemed admissions to McEwen’s first set of requests for admission. It ordered the parties to promptly confer about GRC’s July 27, 2022 objections and answers. Any remaining disputes could be brought to the court for resolution in accordance with its discovery-dispute procedures.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.