Doe v. San Jose Unified School District Board

Opinion

1 2 3 7 8 ELIZABETH SINCLAIR, et al., Case No. 20-cv-02798-LHK (VKD)

9 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE SEPTEMBER 24, 2021 10 v. DISCOVERY DISPUTE

11 SAN JOSE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Re: Dkt. No. 116 BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., 12 Defendants.

13 14 The parties ask the Court to resolve a dispute concerning defendants’ responses to 15 plaintiffs’ requests for admissions. The Court finds the matter suitable for resolution without oral 16 argument. Civil L.R. 7-1(b). 17 For the reasons explained below, the Court grants defendants’ request to withdraw their 18 deemed admissions to plaintiffs’ RFAs Nos. 4-6, 18-20, 29 and 33. 20 On June 11, 2021, plaintiffs Fellowship of Christian Athletes (“FCA”) and two former 21 student members of the local chapter, Elizabeth Sinclair and Charlotte Klarke, served several 22 requests for admissions on defendants Nancy Albarran, Herb Espirirtu, and Peter Glasser. Dkt. 23 No. 116-1. Defendants say that, due to a calendaring error, they did not timely respond to these 24 requests for admissions. Dkt. No. 116 at 2. Defendants discovered the error on August 12, 2021 25 and served their responses. Id. Defendants served amended responses September 10, 2021. Dkt. 26 No. 116-2. 27 The dispute before the Court concerns Requests for Admissions (“RFAs”) Nos. 4-6, 18-20, 1 permitted to withdraw those admissions. Defendants concede that the RFAs are deemed admitted 2 but seek permission to withdraw the admissions to conform to the amended responses served on 3 September 10, 2021. 5 Rule 36(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a request for admission is 6 deemed admitted unless the responding party timely serves a written answer or objection. Fed. R. 7 Civ. P. 36(a)(3). A matter admitted pursuant to Rule 36(a) is “conclusively established” unless a 8 court, “on motion,” permits a party to withdraw or amend its admission. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b). 9 Under Rule 36(b), a court “may permit withdrawal or amendment if it would promote the 10 presentation of the merits of the action and if the court is not persuaded that it would prejudice the 11 requesting party in maintaining or defending the action on the merits.” Id. Because Rule 36(b) is 12 permissive, not mandatory, even if these requirements are met, a court may consider other factors 13 in deciding whether to exercise its discretion to grant relief. Conlon v. U.S., 474 F.3d 616, 621-22, 14 624-25 (9th Cir. 2007). 16 As to each disputed RFA or set of RFAs the Court considers whether the requirements of 17 Rule 36(b) are met, and then considers whether any other factors bear on defendants’ request to 18 withdraw the deemed admissions. 19 A. RFAs Nos. 18-20 20 RFAs Nos. 18-20 ask defendants to admit that each of three San Jose Unified School 21 District high schools (Pioneer, Willow Glen, and Leland) “will not grant” the relevant FCA group 22 “ASB approval as long as the group requires its student leaders to affirm the FCA Statement of 23 Faith.” Dkt. No 116-1 at 12-13. Defendants seek permission to object to the requests as vague, 24 ambiguous, overbroad, and calling for speculation, and to state that they lack sufficient 25 information to admit or deny the requests. Dkt. No. 116-2 at 8-9. 26 The Court considers first whether permitting the defendants to withdraw their admissions 27 and amend their answers to these RFAs will promote the presentation of the merits of the action. 1 leadership requirements,” but they argue that no FCA applications have been submitted for ASB 2 approval in academic year 2021-22 and that new application procedures have been adopted which 3 may bear on the question of whether the clubs will be approved. Dkt. No. 116 at 3. Plaintiffs 4 argue that “[i]t is undisputed that FCA still requires its leaders to affirm the FCA Statement of 5 Faith,” and that the evidence obtained in discovery so far is inconsistent with defendants’ 6 suggestion that the high schools might not deny recognition this year. Id. at 7-8. The parties 7 appear to agree that the question of whether approval will be granted or withheld is a central issue 8 in the case. And while there appears to be little disagreement about the underlying facts, to the 9 extent there is a dispute about how each high school will respond to a request for approval that has 10 not yet been made, permitting the parties to present evidence will promote presentation of the 11 merits on this point. 12 The Court next considers whether permitting defendants to withdraw their admissions and 13 amend their RFA answers will prejudice plaintiffs’ ability to prosecute the action on the merits. 14 Plaintiffs argue that they will be prejudiced by defendants’ amendments because they relied on the 15 admissions in briefing their motion for a preliminary injunction and would have no opportunity to 16 take additional discovery before the hearing on that motion. Id. at 7. Defendants argue that this is 17 not the kind of prejudice Rule36(b) contemplates. They observe that plaintiffs have already taken 18 discovery on matters bearing on the contested admissions, and will have an opportunity to take 19 further discovery. Id. at 4. The Court agrees with defendants. “When undertaking a prejudice 20 inquiry under Rule 36(b), district courts should focus on the prejudice that the nonmoving party 21 would suffer at trial.” Conlon, 474 F.3d at 623 (emphasis added). In analyzing prejudice in 22 Conlon, the Ninth Circuit distinguished cases in which a party attempted to withdraw an 23 admission during or on the eve of trial (often very prejudicial), from cases in which a party 24 attempted to withdraw an admission at a time when the nonmoving party still had an opportunity 25 to adjust its trial strategy and presentation to accommodate the change (generally not prejudicial). 26 Id. at 623-24. Reliance on deemed admissions in preparing a dispositive motion does not 27 constitute prejudice under Rule 36(b), particularly where an opportunity for further discovery 1 ample opportunity to develop further evidence before trial. 2 Nevertheless, the Court has considered plaintiffs’ argument that withdrawal of defendants’ 3 admissions will prejudice their efforts to obtain preliminary injunctive relief. The record does not 4 support this position. The Court has examined the references to defendants’ admissions in 5 plaintiffs’ briefs in support of their motion for preliminary. See Dkt. No. 116 at 6. Plaintiffs have 6 indeed cited defendants’ admissions of RFAs Nos. 18-20 in their motion and reply papers, but 7 these citations appear in a string of other citations to other evidence in the record on the same 8 point, reflecting the extensive discovery plaintiffs have already taken and relied upon regarding 9 ASB approvals. The Court concludes that plaintiffs will not be prejudiced by withdrawal of 10 defendants’ admissions to these RFAs. 11 B. RFAs Nos. 4-6 12 RFAs Nos. 4-6 ask defendants to admit that the student FCA groups at each of the San 13 Jose Unified School District high schools (Pioneer, Willow Glen, and Leland) “permitted all 14 students . . . to attend its meetings.” Dkt. No 116-1 at 9. Defendants seek permission to object to 15 the requests as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive, and to state that they 16 lack sufficient information to admit or deny the requests. Dkt. No. 116-2 at 3-4. In addition, and 17 notwithstanding their objections, defendants specifically deny that the student FCA groups 18 permitted all students to attend the groups’ “leadership meetings.” Id. With respect to RFA No. 4, 19 which concerns the Pioneer student FCA group, defendants admit the request as to meetings other 20 than “leadership meetings.” Id. at 3. With respect to RFAs Nos. 5 and 6, which concern the 21 Willow Glen and Leland student FCA groups, defendants state that they lack sufficient 22 information to admit or deny the requests as to other meetings. Id. at 3-4. 23 The Court considers first whether permitting the defendants to withdraw their admissions 24 and amend their answers to these RFAs will promote the presentation of the merits of the action. 25 Defendants say very little about these RFAs, except that they seek information within plaintiffs’ 26 knowledge and “go directly to core factual and legal issues in the litigation.” See Dkt. No. 116 at 27 3, 5. Plaintiffs argue that other evidence in the record establishes that “all students are welcome to 1 requests. Id. at 9. The parties appear to agree that the question of whether the FCA clubs 2 excluded certain students from their meetings or permitted all students to attend is an important 3 issue in the case. In contending that the evidence is undisputed, plaintiffs do not address 4 defendants’ distinction between “leadership meetings” and other meetings or events. There 5 appears to be little disagreement about the underlying facts, but rather a disagreement about the 6 interpretation of the RFAs. However, to the extent there is a dispute about which students were 7 permitted to attend which meetings of the FCA groups at each high school, permitting the parties 8 to present evidence will promote presentation of the merits on this point. 9 The Court next considers whether permitting defendants to withdraw their admissions and 10 amend their RFA answers will prejudice plaintiffs’ ability to prosecute the action on the merits. 11 As with RFAs Nos. 18-20, plaintiffs argue that they will be prejudiced by defendants’ 12 amendments because they relied on the admissions in briefing their motion for a preliminary 13 injunction and would have no opportunity to take additional discovery before the hearing on that 14 motion. Id. at 7, 9. For the reasons explained above with respect to RFAs Nos. 18-20, the Court 15 concludes plaintiffs’ reliance on the deemed admissions in support of the motion for preliminary 16 injunction does not constitute prejudice for purposes of Rule 36(b). 17 C. RFA No. 29 18 RFA No. 29 asks defendants to admit that “meetings of Student FCA Groups in the 19 District are led by students.” Dkt. No 116-1 at 15. Defendants seek permission to object to the 20 request as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, compound, burdensome, oppressive, and calling for 21 speculation. Dkt. No. 116-2 at 11. In addition, and notwithstanding their objections, defendants 22 “[a]dmit that some Student FCA Group meetings in the District have been led by students in the 23 past, but deny that all meetings have been led by students, or been led exclusively by students, and 24 deny that there are any Student FCA Groups currently meeting within the District.” Id. 25 The Court considers first whether permitting the defendants to withdraw their admission 26 and amend their answer to this RFA will promote the presentation of the merits of the action. 27 Defendants say very little about this RFA, except that it “pertain[s] to a threshold issue of whether 1 “contradicts much of the evidence revealed through discovery.” Dkt. No. 116 at 3. Plaintiffs 2 argue that “unrebutted testimony and declarations establish[ ] that all student FCA meetings within 3 the District are student initiated and student-led.” Id. at 9. The parties appear to agree that the 4 question of whether students led the meetings is an important issue in the case. In contending that 5 the evidence is undisputed, plaintiffs do not acknowledge or address defendants’ partial admission 6 of this RFA, but again there appears to be little disagreement about the underlying facts. 7 However, to the extent there is a dispute about whether or to what extent the FCA meetings were 8 led by students, permitting the parties to present evidence will promote presentation of the merits 9 on this point. 10 The Court next considers whether permitting defendants to withdraw their admission and 11 amend their RFA answer will prejudice plaintiffs’ ability to prosecute the action on the merits. As 12 with RFAs Nos. 18-20, plaintiffs argue that they will be prejudiced by defendants’ amendments 13 because they relied on the admissions in briefing their motion for a preliminary injunction and 14 would have no opportunity to take additional discovery before the hearing on that motion. Id. at 7, 15 9. For the reasons explained above with respect to RFAs Nos. 18-20, the Court concludes 16 plaintiffs’ reliance on the deemed admissions in support of the motion for preliminary injunction 17 does not constitute prejudice for purposes of Rule 36(b). 18 D. RFA No. 33 19 RFA No. 33 asks defendants to admit that “[i]n the past 5 years, the Pioneer Student FCA 20 Chapter is the only student group at Pioneer that had its ASB approval revoked.” Dkt. No 116-1 21 at 15. Defendants seek permission to object to the request as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, 22 burdensome, and oppressive. Dkt. No. 116-2 at 13. However, notwithstanding their objections, 23 defendants admit that, with respect to student-initiated clubs, “the Pioneer Student FCA Chapter is 24 the only student initiated club that had its ASB approval formally revoked in the past 5 years,” but 25 deny that “it is the only group that has had its ASB approval status changed within the past 5 26 years.” Id. 27 The Court considers first whether permitting the defendants to withdraw their admission 1 parties’ dispute about this RFA is puzzling. Defendants appear to have admitted the portion of the 2 RFA that plaintiffs say is important to their claims. See Dkt. No. 116 at 9. Also, there appears to 3 be little disagreement about the underlying facts. However, to the extent there is a dispute about 4 whether the Pioneer FCA group is the only student group at Pioneer that has had its ASB approval 5 revoked in the past 5 years, permitting the parties to present evidence will promote presentation of 6 the merits on the question of whether defendants selectively enforced their policies. 7 The Court next considers whether permitting defendants to withdraw their admission and 8 amend their RFA answer will prejudice plaintiffs’ ability to prosecute the action on the merits. As 9 with RFAs Nos. 18-20, plaintiffs argue that they will be prejudiced by defendants’ amendments 10 because they relied on the admissions in briefing their motion for a preliminary injunction and 11 would have no opportunity to take additional discovery before the hearing on that motion. Id. at 7, 12 9. For the reasons explained above with respect to RFAs Nos. 18-20, the Court concludes 13 plaintiffs’ reliance on the deemed admissions in support of the motion for preliminary injunction 14 does not constitute prejudice for purposes of Rule 36(b). 15 E. Other Factors 16 Having determined that both requirements of Rule 36(b) are met as to all disputed RFAs, 17 the Court next considers whether there are any other factors that bear on the question of whether 18 defendants should be permitted to withdraw their admissions. Plaintiffs argue that defendants 19 have not shown good cause for their delay in seeking to withdraw their admissions. Id. at 7. This 20 argument is not persuasive. Defendants have explained that they made a calendaring error, which 21 they promptly sought to correct when they discovered it by notifying plaintiffs of the error and 22 serving responses to the RFAs. The parties then engaged in discussions about the need to seek 23 relief from the Court as to a subset of those RFAs. While plaintiffs’ frustration with defendants’ 24 failure to timely respond to the RFAs is understandable, the Court finds no reason to conclude that 25 defendants acted in bad faith or engaged in any other misconduct that warrants denial of 26 permission to withdraw the deemed admissions. 27 The Court does not consider here whether defendants’ objections to the RFAs are well- 1 purposes of Rule 37(c)(2). 2 || IV. CONCLUSION 3 For the reasons discussed above, the Court grants defendants’ request to withdraw their 4 deemed admissions to plaintiffs’ RFAs Nos. 4-6, 18-20, 29 and 33, and to amend their responses 5 as reflected in Dkt. No. 116-2. 7 Dated: October 6, 2021 8 9 Unigitia B AAA . Au March: VIRGINIA K. DEMARCH 10 United States Magistrate Judge 11 a 12

15 16

= 17 6 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28