Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted Defendant Alyssa Tutterow’s motion for relief from waiver and for leave to withdraw, amend, and substantively respond to requests for admission. The court found good cause to excuse the untimely objections to interrogatories and requests for production, and concluded that withdrawal of the deemed admissions would promote presentation of the merits without prejudicing Plaintiff. The court deemed Tutterow’s October 14, 2024 responses to be her operative responses.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Tutterow showed good cause for relief from waiver of objections to the interrogatories and requests for production under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and 34.
- Whether the court should permit withdrawal and amendment of Tutterow's deemed admissions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(b).
Holdings
- The court may excuse untimely discovery objections when good cause exists, and Tutterow established good cause because the delay resulted from a counsel conflict and substitution, there was no bad faith, and Plaintiff suffered no material prejudice.
- The court may permit withdrawal and amendment of deemed admissions when doing so promotes presentation of the merits and the requesting party fails to establish prejudice; both conditions were satisfied here.
Key quotations
“To determine whether there is good cause to find objections are not waived, courts consider (1) the length of delay, (2) the reason for delay, (3) the existence of bad faith, (4) the prejudice to the party seeking waiver, (5) the nature of the request, and (6) the harshness of imposing sanctions.” (at 2)
“[T]he court may permit withdrawal or amendment if it would promote the presentation of the merits of the action and if the court is not persuaded that it would prejudice the requesting party in maintaining or defending the action on the merits.” (at 5)
“The prejudice contemplated by Rule 36(b) is not simply that the party who obtained the admission will now have to convince the factfinder of its truth.” (at 6)
Factual background
Plaintiff served discovery requests on Defendant Tutterow on June 17, 2024, with responses due August 7, 2024. Tutterow's then-counsel informed Plaintiff's counsel eight days before the deadline that a conflict prevented counsel from conferring with Tutterow and that substitute counsel would need an extension. Substitute counsel was approved on September 6, 2024, and Tutterow served substantive discovery responses on October 14, 2024. The discovery cutoff remained approximately two months away, and Plaintiff did not adequately show prejudice from allowing the late objections and withdrawal of deemed admissions.
Procedural history
Black commenced this civil-rights action in November 2021 and filed a Third Amended Complaint in March 2024. He served interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission on the officer defendants, including Tutterow, with responses due August 7, 2024. After a conflict caused former defense counsel to be unable to coordinate responses with Tutterow, new counsel served responses on October 14, 2024. Tutterow then moved for relief from waiver and to withdraw and amend the deemed admissions; the court granted the motion.