1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DANIEL BESS, Case No. 22-cv-00341-JSC
8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 9 v. MOTION TO WITHDRAW OR AMEND ADMISSIONS 10 J. PEFFLEY, Re: Dkt. No. 105 Defendant. 11
12 13 Daniel Bess (“Plaintiff”), an inmate at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, 14 California, brings Section 1983 claims against J. Peffley (“Defendant”), a former prison guard at 15 his facility. (Dkt. No.1 at 5.) 1 This case is set for trial November 17, 2025. (Dkt. No. 100 at 1.) 16 Currently pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to withdraw or amend his June 6, 2022 17 responses to two Requests for Admissions (“RFA”). (Dkt. No. 104-2.) After carefully considering 18 parties’ submissions, and having had the benefit of oral argument on July 24, 2025, the Court 19 DENIES Defendant’s motion to withdraw or amend admissions because Defendant fails to satisfy 20 both prongs of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(b) and has not established good cause for delay. 21 BACKGROUND 22 A. Complaint Allegations 23 Defendant threatened Plaintiff into supplying him with confidential information about 24 security threat group (“STG”) members and affiliates. (Dkt. No. 1 at 6.) Plaintiff refused to be a 25 “snitch” for Defendant because it would place his life in jeopardy. (Id.) Additionally, Plaintiff 26 informed Defendant he would file an administrative grievance against Defendant to report his 27 1 “unauthorized and illegal behavior.” (Id.) Defendant retaliated by placing false confidential 2 memorandums in Plaintiff’s record which validated Plaintiff as an STG affiliate and made him 3 unsuitable for parole. (Id. at 6, 7.) 4 After exhausting all available administrative remedies, Plaintiff filed this action in this 5 Court on January 18, 2022, alleging violations to his First and Eighth Amendment rights. (Dkt. 6 No. 1 at 1, 8.) 7 B. Procedural History 8 1. Defendant Admitted RFA Nos. 8 & 9 on June 6, 2022 9 Plaintiff served Defendant with RFAs on May 13, 2022. (Dkt. No. 104-4 at 2.) Three 10 weeks later, Defendant served responses to the RFAs which included express admissions to RFA 11 Nos. 8 and 9: 12 REQUEST NO. 8: 13 Admit that you asked Mr. Bess to provide you with 14 information on the Mexican Mafia, Southerner, Piasa, Crip, 15 Blood and White Nationalist members, associates and 16 affiliates. 17 18 REQUEST NO. 9: 19 Admit that Mr. Bess refused to provide you with information 20 on the Mexican Mafia, Southerner, Piasa, Crip, Blood and 21 White Nationalist members, associates and affiliates. 22 (Dkt. No. 109-3 at 5.) Defendant’s admissions were signed by his then-counsel, Peter Ben 23 Nichols. (Id. at 7.) 24 2. Defendant Verified his Interrogatory Responses on June 6, 2022 25 On the same day Defendant’s former counsel served responses to the RFAs, Defendant 26 verified his interrogatory responses under penalty of perjury. (Dkt. No. 109-4.) In particular, 27 Interrogatory No. 19 asked: 1 For each of your responses to Mr. Bess’ Requests for 2 Admissions (served concurrently herewith) which is not 3 unqualified admission, state the basis for your denial of the 4 fact(s) state [sic] in each Request. 5 (Id. at 12.) In response, Defendant only disputed RFA Nos. 10-15 and provided facts for his 6 denials to those Requests. He did not list RFA Nos. 8 and 9 as “not unqualified admissions.” (Id.) 7 3. The Court Entered a Summary Judgment Order on August 2, 2023 8 Defendant moved for summary judgment on November 21, 2022. (Dkt. No. 30 at 1.) The 9 Court granted summary judgment in Defendant’s favor in part of Plaintiff’s First Amendment 10 claim and denied summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim. (Id. at 16.) In the 11 Order, the Court accepted the admissions to RFA Nos. 8 and 9 as undisputed facts. (Dkt. No. 30 at 12 1, 2.) 13 4. Defendant Served Supplemental Reponses to Interrogatories on March 22, 14 2024 15 Defendant’s supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 14 disputes Plaintiff’s allegation 16 that Defendant asked Plaintiff to provide any information “regarding illegal activity.” (Dkt. No. 17 104-5 at 8.) 18 5. Defendant’s Counsel Discovers Admissions 8 & 9 Were Wrong in August 19 and September 2024 20 In preparing for Defendant’s September 10, 2024 deposition, his new counsel became 21 aware in August and September 2024 of inconsistencies between his anticipated testimony and his 22 responses to RFA Nos. 8 and 9. (Dkt. No. 104-5 at 2.) 23 6. Discovery Closed on September 13, 2024 24 Fact discovery closed three days after Defendant’s September 10, 2024 deposition. (Dkt. 25 No. 63 at 3.) 26 7. Defendant Moved to Withdraw or Amend Admissions on May 27, 2025 27 Eight months after Defendant’s new counsel discovered the inconsistencies, Defendant 1 LEGAL STANDARD 2 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(b), courts may grant a party relief from an 3 admission if: (1) “it would promote the presentation of the merits of this action,” and (2) “the 4 court is not persuaded that it would prejudice the requesting party in maintaining or defending the 5 action on the merits.” Even if both prongs are satisfied, the rule is permissive, not mandatory. See 6 Asea, Inc. v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 1248 (9th Cir. 1981) (“A per se rule that the 7 district court must permit withdrawal of an admission which relates to an important or dispositive 8 matter is inappropriate in light of the purpose of this discovery device: to narrow the issues for 9 trial and avoid litigation of unessential facts.”) A court may consider other factors in deciding 10 whether to exercise its discretion to grant relief, including “whether the moving party can show 11 good cause for the delay” in filing the motion. Conlon v. United States, 474 F.3d 616, 625 (9th 12 Cir. 2007). 13 DISCUSSION 14 I. First Factor: Promoting Presentation of Merits 15 Withdrawal of an admission is only appropriate “if it would promote the presentation of 16 the merits of the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b). This requirement may be satisfied when 17 “upholding admissions would practically eliminate any presentation on the merits of the case.” 18 Conlon, 474 F.3d at 621. 19 Defendant contends the entire foundation of Plaintiff’s claims rely on the factual premises 20 established by the responses to RFA 8 and 9, and without them, Plaintiff has no case. (Dkt. No. 21 104-2 at 5.) Defendant also argues withdrawal is necessary to allow him to put on a defense and 22 prevent him from having an “unworkable” trial. (Dkt. No. 112-2 at 3.) 23 A. Merits of Plaintiff’s First Amendment Claim 24 The Court granted Defendant summary judgment on Plaintiff’s First Amendment 25 retaliation claim “to the extent it is premised on the alleged protective activity of refusing to 26 snitch.” (Dkt. No. 30 at 12.) But, the Court denied Defendant summary judgment on the First 27 Amendment retaliation claim to the extent it is based on the alleged protective activity of 1 asked Plaintiff to provide information about STG members and Plaintiff refused—“would not 2 practically eliminate any presentation on the merits of the case.” Conlon, 474 F.3d at 621. To 3 succeed on his First Amendment claim, Plaintiff must prove Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff 4 for expressing his intent to file a grievance, a fact not admitted in RFA Nos. 8 and 9. 5 B.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DANIEL BESS, Case No. 22-cv-00341-JSC
8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 9 v. MOTION TO WITHDRAW OR AMEND ADMISSIONS 10 J. PEFFLEY, Re: Dkt. No. 105 Defendant. 11
12 13 Daniel Bess (“Plaintiff”), an inmate at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, 14 California, brings Section 1983 claims against J. Peffley (“Defendant”), a former prison guard at 15 his facility. (Dkt. No.1 at 5.) 1 This case is set for trial November 17, 2025. (Dkt. No. 100 at 1.) 16 Currently pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to withdraw or amend his June 6, 2022 17 responses to two Requests for Admissions (“RFA”). (Dkt. No. 104-2.) After carefully considering 18 parties’ submissions, and having had the benefit of oral argument on July 24, 2025, the Court 19 DENIES Defendant’s motion to withdraw or amend admissions because Defendant fails to satisfy 20 both prongs of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(b) and has not established good cause for delay. 21 BACKGROUND 22 A. Complaint Allegations 23 Defendant threatened Plaintiff into supplying him with confidential information about 24 security threat group (“STG”) members and affiliates. (Dkt. No. 1 at 6.) Plaintiff refused to be a 25 “snitch” for Defendant because it would place his life in jeopardy. (Id.) Additionally, Plaintiff 26 informed Defendant he would file an administrative grievance against Defendant to report his 27 1 “unauthorized and illegal behavior.” (Id.) Defendant retaliated by placing false confidential 2 memorandums in Plaintiff’s record which validated Plaintiff as an STG affiliate and made him 3 unsuitable for parole. (Id. at 6, 7.) 4 After exhausting all available administrative remedies, Plaintiff filed this action in this 5 Court on January 18, 2022, alleging violations to his First and Eighth Amendment rights. (Dkt. 6 No. 1 at 1, 8.) 7 B. Procedural History 8 1. Defendant Admitted RFA Nos. 8 & 9 on June 6, 2022 9 Plaintiff served Defendant with RFAs on May 13, 2022. (Dkt. No. 104-4 at 2.) Three 10 weeks later, Defendant served responses to the RFAs which included express admissions to RFA 11 Nos. 8 and 9: 12 REQUEST NO. 8: 13 Admit that you asked Mr. Bess to provide you with 14 information on the Mexican Mafia, Southerner, Piasa, Crip, 15 Blood and White Nationalist members, associates and 16 affiliates. 17 18 REQUEST NO. 9: 19 Admit that Mr. Bess refused to provide you with information 20 on the Mexican Mafia, Southerner, Piasa, Crip, Blood and 21 White Nationalist members, associates and affiliates. 22 (Dkt. No. 109-3 at 5.) Defendant’s admissions were signed by his then-counsel, Peter Ben 23 Nichols. (Id. at 7.) 24 2. Defendant Verified his Interrogatory Responses on June 6, 2022 25 On the same day Defendant’s former counsel served responses to the RFAs, Defendant 26 verified his interrogatory responses under penalty of perjury. (Dkt. No. 109-4.) In particular, 27 Interrogatory No. 19 asked: 1 For each of your responses to Mr. Bess’ Requests for 2 Admissions (served concurrently herewith) which is not 3 unqualified admission, state the basis for your denial of the 4 fact(s) state [sic] in each Request. 5 (Id. at 12.) In response, Defendant only disputed RFA Nos. 10-15 and provided facts for his 6 denials to those Requests. He did not list RFA Nos. 8 and 9 as “not unqualified admissions.” (Id.) 7 3. The Court Entered a Summary Judgment Order on August 2, 2023 8 Defendant moved for summary judgment on November 21, 2022. (Dkt. No. 30 at 1.) The 9 Court granted summary judgment in Defendant’s favor in part of Plaintiff’s First Amendment 10 claim and denied summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim. (Id. at 16.) In the 11 Order, the Court accepted the admissions to RFA Nos. 8 and 9 as undisputed facts. (Dkt. No. 30 at 12 1, 2.) 13 4. Defendant Served Supplemental Reponses to Interrogatories on March 22, 14 2024 15 Defendant’s supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 14 disputes Plaintiff’s allegation 16 that Defendant asked Plaintiff to provide any information “regarding illegal activity.” (Dkt. No. 17 104-5 at 8.) 18 5. Defendant’s Counsel Discovers Admissions 8 & 9 Were Wrong in August 19 and September 2024 20 In preparing for Defendant’s September 10, 2024 deposition, his new counsel became 21 aware in August and September 2024 of inconsistencies between his anticipated testimony and his 22 responses to RFA Nos. 8 and 9. (Dkt. No. 104-5 at 2.) 23 6. Discovery Closed on September 13, 2024 24 Fact discovery closed three days after Defendant’s September 10, 2024 deposition. (Dkt. 25 No. 63 at 3.) 26 7. Defendant Moved to Withdraw or Amend Admissions on May 27, 2025 27 Eight months after Defendant’s new counsel discovered the inconsistencies, Defendant 1 LEGAL STANDARD 2 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(b), courts may grant a party relief from an 3 admission if: (1) “it would promote the presentation of the merits of this action,” and (2) “the 4 court is not persuaded that it would prejudice the requesting party in maintaining or defending the 5 action on the merits.” Even if both prongs are satisfied, the rule is permissive, not mandatory. See 6 Asea, Inc. v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 1248 (9th Cir. 1981) (“A per se rule that the 7 district court must permit withdrawal of an admission which relates to an important or dispositive 8 matter is inappropriate in light of the purpose of this discovery device: to narrow the issues for 9 trial and avoid litigation of unessential facts.”) A court may consider other factors in deciding 10 whether to exercise its discretion to grant relief, including “whether the moving party can show 11 good cause for the delay” in filing the motion. Conlon v. United States, 474 F.3d 616, 625 (9th 12 Cir. 2007). 13 DISCUSSION 14 I. First Factor: Promoting Presentation of Merits 15 Withdrawal of an admission is only appropriate “if it would promote the presentation of 16 the merits of the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b). This requirement may be satisfied when 17 “upholding admissions would practically eliminate any presentation on the merits of the case.” 18 Conlon, 474 F.3d at 621. 19 Defendant contends the entire foundation of Plaintiff’s claims rely on the factual premises 20 established by the responses to RFA 8 and 9, and without them, Plaintiff has no case. (Dkt. No. 21 104-2 at 5.) Defendant also argues withdrawal is necessary to allow him to put on a defense and 22 prevent him from having an “unworkable” trial. (Dkt. No. 112-2 at 3.) 23 A. Merits of Plaintiff’s First Amendment Claim 24 The Court granted Defendant summary judgment on Plaintiff’s First Amendment 25 retaliation claim “to the extent it is premised on the alleged protective activity of refusing to 26 snitch.” (Dkt. No. 30 at 12.) But, the Court denied Defendant summary judgment on the First 27 Amendment retaliation claim to the extent it is based on the alleged protective activity of 1 asked Plaintiff to provide information about STG members and Plaintiff refused—“would not 2 practically eliminate any presentation on the merits of the case.” Conlon, 474 F.3d at 621. To 3 succeed on his First Amendment claim, Plaintiff must prove Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff 4 for expressing his intent to file a grievance, a fact not admitted in RFA Nos. 8 and 9. 5 B. Merits of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment Claim 6 Defendant’s admissions also do not “eliminate any presentation on the merits” of 7 Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment personal safety claim. “Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim is that 8 Defendant tried to force Plaintiff into the dangerous position of being a snitch by threatening 9 Plaintiff if he refused.” (Dkt. No. 30 at 13 (emphasis added).) While the admissions to the RFAs 10 may provide some foundational facts for Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim, they do not 11 establish that claim and do not significantly limit Defendant’s ability to present a defense as to the 12 events that occurred after the request and refusal to provide information about STG members. See 13 Hawks v. Seery, No. CV-21-00092-PHX-DGC, 2023 WL 1779619, at *1 (D. Ariz. Jan. 17, 2023) 14 (the first prong of Rule 36(b) is not satisfied when admissions that establish foundational facts do 15 not “significantly establish Plaintiff’s claims or eliminate Defendant’s defenses”). 16 *** 17 In sum, the first prong of Rule 36(b) is not met for Plaintiff’s First or Eighth Amendment 18 claims because the admissions to RFA Nos. 8 and 9 do not effectively end the litigation; that is, 19 they do not foreclose Defendant from defending either claim. The parties must still present their 20 cases on the claims that Defendant threatened Plaintiff’s personal safety and retaliated against him 21 after the events alleged in the admissions. 22 II. Second Factor: Prejudice to Plaintiff 23 The second prong asks the court to consider whether the nonmoving party would suffer 24 prejudice by granting withdrawal or amendment. Hadley v. United States, 45 F.3d 1345, 1348 (9th 25 Cir. 1995). The nonmoving party bears the burden of proving prejudice which can be measured by 26 “the difficulty a party may face in proving its case.” Id. at 1348. 27 Plaintiff meets his burden of showing prejudice from withdrawal or amendment of 1 discovery has closed and trial is in four months. (Dkt. No. 109-2 at 11.) Plaintiff “reasonably 2 relied” on the admissions for over three years and Defendant made no effort to correct the record 3 until now, months after the close of discovery. (Id.) Plaintiff has structured his entire litigation 4 strategy around the admissions to focus on disputed facts that occurred after the admitted events. 5 (Dkt. No. 109-2 at 11.) Plaintiff would be unduly burdened by the sudden need to obtain evidence 6 to prove the allegations in the admitted RFAs. See Hadley, 45 F.3d at 1348 (“the sudden need to 7 obtain evidence with respect to the questions previously deemed admitted” is a valid factor for 8 weighing prejudice) (internal citations omitted). 9 Defendant postures the lack of discovery is not sufficient to constitute prejudice against 10 Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 104-2 at 5.) As support, Defendant references Conlon: “we are reluctant to 11 conclude a lack of discovery, without more, constitutes prejudice.” Conlon, 474 F.3d at 624. But 12 this quote is taken out of context.
13 In analyzing prejudice in Conlon, the Ninth Circuit distinguished cases in which a party attempted to withdraw an admission during or 14 on the eve of trial (often very prejudicial), from cases in which a party attempted to withdraw an admission at a time when the nonmoving 15 party still had an opportunity to adjust its trial strategy and presentation to accommodate the change (generally not prejudicial). 16 Sinclair v. San Jose Unified Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., No. 20-cv-02798-LHK, 2021 WL 4597078, at 17 *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2021). Indeed, courts have found delays in bringing Rule 36(b) motions to 18 be prejudicial when the delay burdens the nonmoving party with a sudden need to obtain evidence. 19 See Doty v. City of Santa Clara, No. 14-cv-03739-LHK, 2015 WL 9027727, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20 16, 2015) (finding prejudice when the motion was filed five months after the admissions were 21 deemed admitted and the nonmoving party relied on admissions to structure discovery plan, 22 settlement conference, and trial strategy); Eagle Eyes Traffic Indus. USA Holding LLC v. E-Go 23 Bike LLC, No. 21-cv-07097-TLT, 2023 WL 11868202, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2023) (finding 24 prejudice when nonmoving party relied on admissions for over 15 months, past the discovery 25 deadline, and two months before trial); Melton v. Regional Center of East Bay, No. 20-cv-06613- 26 YGR, 2025 WL 1077460, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2025) (finding prejudice when the moving 27 1 time remaining in fact discovery that [the nonmoving party] could have taken the necessary 2 discovery to develop a record”). Defendant is seeking to withdraw or amend admissions he made 3 three years ago. (Dkt. No. 104-2.) Because discovery closed ten months ago and trial starts in 4 four months, Plaintiff would be prejudiced by the sudden need to obtain evidence previously 5 admitted in the RFAs. So, the second prong of Rule 36(b) is not met. 6 III. Good Cause for Amendment 7 Even if both prongs of Rule 36(b) had been met, the Court still has discretion to consider 8 whether the defendant demonstrated good cause for the delay in filing the motion. Conlon, 474 9 F.3d at 625. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)’s good cause standard “primarily considers the 10 diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 11 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Diligence may speak to the moving party’s timeliness in seeking relief 12 from the deemed admissions. Lux EAP, LLC v. Bruner, 811 F. App’x 405, 407 (9th Cir. 2020). 13 Defendant fails to show good cause for his delay in seeking to withdraw his admissions. 14 He concedes a client is usually accountable for counsel’s errors but insists here he is blameless and 15 should not suffer the consequences of his counsel’s mistake. (Dkt. No. 104-2 at 6-7.) But 16 Defendant is also responsible for the error. He verified his responses to the interrogatories under 17 penalty of perjury. Under penalty of perjury, he set forth facts that supported the denial of certain 18 requests for admissions. He should not have verified those facts without looking at all the requests 19 for admission and, if he looked, then he should have seen that the requests immediately preceding 20 the denials were admitted. That he apparently did not does not establish good cause. 21 Further, even if Defendant was unaware of the erroneous admissions made three years ago 22 and did not learn about the mistake until preparing for his deposition, he still waited an additional 23 eight months after discovering the error to move to withdraw. Defendant fails to provide any 24 justifiable reason for this delay. See Lux EAP, LLC, 811 F. App’x at 407 (denying motion even 25 after finding both prongs of Rule 36(b) were satisfied because movant had been aware of the 26 admissions for weeks and failed to withdraw them prior to summary judgment hearing). 27 // 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons discussed above, Defendant’s motion to withdraw or amend admissions is 3 DENIED. 4 Defendant’s renewed administrative motion to seal is GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 116.) This 5 Order disposes of Docket Nos. 105, 116. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: July 25, 2025 ie Sal 9 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY 10 United States District Judge 11 a 12
15 16
= 17
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28