Fodera, Jr. v. Equinox Holdings, Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: April 4, 2022
• Docket: 3:19-cv-05072
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 FRANK J. FODERA, JR., et al., Case No. 19-cv-05072-WHO

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. WITHDRAW DEEMED ADMISSIONS

10 EQUINOX HOLDINGS, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 108 Defendant. 11

12 Defendant Equinox Holdings, Inc. (“Equinox”) seeks to withdraw admissions regarding 13 class data that were automatically made under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 because 14 Equinox filed its responses three days late. The motion is GRANTED. Withdrawing the 15 admissions promotes the presentation of the merits of the action and the plaintiffs have not shown 16 that they will be prejudiced as a result. Moreover, allowing the parties to rely on inaccurate data 17 does not serve the ultimate purposes of Rule 36: truth-seeking and efficiency. 18 BACKGROUND 19 At issue are two letters (“the letters”)—one dated June 1, 2021, the other July 22, 2021— 20 that Equinox’s counsel sent to the plaintiffs’ counsel. Mot. [Dkt. No. 108] 5:3-10. The parties 21 agreed that Equinox would provide the plaintiffs certain class data in anticipation of mediation, 22 including “data pertaining to the number of class members, pay periods, hours worked, shifts for 23 various non-exempt employees, other group fitness class and personal training data.” Id. at 5:3-7. 24 The letters contained that data. Id. at 5:9. 25 According to Equinox, it later learned that some of the data in the letters was “inaccurate.” 26 Id. at 5:13-16. It contends that it “produced and clarified the information in formal, verified 27 responses” to interrogatories on December 10, 2021, January 20, 2022, and February 4, 2022. Id. 1 Equinox to admit that the letters were genuine and the information contained within accurate. Id. 2 at 5:17-19. Responses were due by December 20, 2021. Id. at 5:20. According to Equinox, 3 because of a miscommunication between counsel and a staff member, the responses—which were 4 objections rather than admissions or denials—were not served until December 23. Id. 5:20-25. 5 The plaintiffs used the data from the letters in their motion for class certification, which 6 they filed on January 5, 2021. See Dkt. No. 68. Equinox objected to that use, and filed this 7 motion on February 25, 2022. Dkt. No. 108. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), this matter was 8 deemed appropriate for resolution without oral argument. 9 LEGAL STANDARD 10 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 governs requests for admissions. Rule 36(a)(3) states:

11 A matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served, the party to whom 12 the request is directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney. A shorter or longer 13 time for responding may be stipulated to under Rule 29 or be ordered by the court.

14 “The rule is not to be used in an effort to ‘harass the other side’ or in the hope that a party’s 15 adversary will simply concede essential elements.” Conlon v. United States, 474 F.3d 616, 622 16 (9th Cir. 2007). “Rather, the rule seeks to serve two important goals: truth-seeking in litigation 17 and efficiency in dispensing justice.” Id. 18 A matter admitted under Rule 36 is “conclusively established unless the court, on motion, 19 permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b). The court may permit 20 withdrawal or amendment “if it would promote the presentation of the merits of the action and if 21 the court is not persuaded that it would prejudice the requesting party in maintaining or defending 22 the action on the merits.” Id. The Ninth Circuit has held that courts must “specifically consider” 23 both factors when deciding a motion to withdraw or amend admissions. Conlon, 474 F.3d at 622. 24 DISCUSSION 25 The plaintiffs argue that withdrawing the admissions would not promote the presentation 26 of the merits of the action because the information at issue involves class data rather than 27 admissions of liability. Oppo. [Dkt. No. 119] 7:22-24. I disagree. As argued on the motion for 1 class certification, the plaintiffs’ theory of liability relies in significant part on whether Equinox 2 || had a policy or practice of requiring employees to perform off-the-clock work or of denying them 3 meal and rest breaks as required by law. That theory may be supported or disproven by some of 4 || the data at issue, including the number of shifts and hours that these employees worked, as 5 compared to the amount of money they were paid. Allowing Equinox to withdraw the admissions 6 || would, in this instance, promote the presentation of the merits of the action. 7 As the party relying on the deemed admissions, the plaintiffs have the burden of proving 8 || prejudice. Conlon, 474 F.3d at 622. They argue that they have relied on this data since Equinox 9 || provided it in June and July 2021. See Oppo. at 5:16-18. They then focus on factors that a court 10 || in the Central District of California used in considering a similar motion, namely lack of good 11 cause and candor, and a pattern of discovery delays. See id. at 6:3-27 (citing Full Tilt Boogie, 12 || LLC v. KEP Fortune, LLC, No. 19-CV-09090, 2021 WL 3261638 (C.D. Cal. May 24, 2021)). 5 13 This case is not persuasive, and in relying on it, the plaintiffs miss their central task as 14 articulated in Conlon: showing that allowing Equinox to withdraw its admissions would prejudice 3 15 their ability to prove their claims at trial. See Conlon, 474 F.3d at 623. Equinox submitted its 16 || objections a mere three days after the response deadline, and later updated the underlying data in 3 17 other responses, which the plaintiffs do not contest. Nor do the plaintiffs articulate how 18 withdrawing these admissions will prejudice their ability to prove their claims at trial eight months 19 || before that trial is set to occur. Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden in showing prejudice. 20 As the Ninth Circuit stated, Rule 36 “seeks to serve two important goals: truth-seeking in 21 litigation and efficiency in dispensing justice.” Jd. at 622. Squabbling over a three-day delay 22 serves neither. 23 CONCLUSION 24 For the reasons stated above, Equinox’s motion is GRANTED. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: April 4, 2022 . \f 27 28 Wilham H. Orrick United States District Judge