Jones-Adams v. Experian Information Solutions Inc

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: June 6, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01839
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 CYNQUE DARON JONES-ADAMS, CASE NO. C24-1839-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., 13 Defendant. 14 15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw his deemed 16 admissions and extend the time to serve responses to requests for admissions (Dkt. No. 24). 17 Having thoroughly considered the briefing and the relevant record, the Court GRANTS the 18 motion for the following reasons. 19 The discovery cut-off in this consumer credit action is October 10, 2025, and trial is set 20 for February 2026. (See Dkt. Nos. 16, 23.) Defendant served Plaintiff with Requests for 21 Admissions on January 31, 2025. (See Dkt. No. 24-1 at 2.) Plaintiff’s Responses were due March 22 3, 2025. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3) (30-day deadline). Plaintiff did not respond. Instead, on 23 May 7, 2025, he contacted Defendant and acknowledged that he had missed the deadline. (See 24 Dkt. Nos. 25 at 2, 24-1 at 2.) Plaintiff now represents he missed the deadline because he was ill 25 during this time and did not understand the deadlines. (Dkt. No. 25 at 1–2.) Now, he seeks to 26 1 withdraw the resulting deemed admissions and asks the Court for additional time to respond.1 2 (See generally Dkt. No. 24.) Defendant has not responded to the motion. 3 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(3), a request for admission is deemed 4 admitted if a party served does not respond within 30 days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3). Rule 36(b), 5 however, provides a “safe harbor.” Conlon v. United States, 474 F.3d 616, 622 (9th Cir. 2007). 6 Under Rule 36(b), the Court may permit a party to withdraw an admission if (1) doing so would 7 help reach the merits of the action and (2) there is no prejudice to the opposing party. Fed. R. 8 Civ. P. 36(b). 9 As to the admissions at issue here, absent the relief Plaintiff seeks, he would be deemed 10 not to have made certain payments relevant to his disputed credit history. (See Dkt. No. 24 at 4.) 11 This fact is material to the merits because, if true, it would support Defendant’s affirmative 12 defense. (See Dkt. No. 26 at 18) (affirmative defense of accurate credit information). Thus, a 13 withdrawal of Plaintiff’s admission would help reach the merits. 14 As to prejudice, the opposing party bears the burden of demonstrating that a withdrawal 15 of admissions would make it more difficult for them to prove their case at trial. Conlon, 474 F.3d 16 at 622 (citing Hadley v. United States, 45 F.3d 1345, 1348 (9th Cir. 1995)). However, Defendant 17 did not respond to Plaintiff’s motion seeking withdrawal.2 Thus, it is not clear how it might be 18 prejudiced by allowing Plaintiff more time to respond to its request. This is particularly true 19 when this action is still months away from the discovery cut-off and the trial date. Compare 20 Hadley, 45 F.3d at 1349–50 (withdrawal accepted before trial), with 999 v. C.I.T. Corp., 776 21 1 To the extent that Plaintiff seeks additional time for other responses, the Court has no way to 22 assess these requests because, unlike the Request for Admissions, Plaintiff has not clarified what these other items are. (See generally Dkt. No. 24.) In addition, Defendant told Plaintiff that he 23 may still respond to interrogatories and request for production. (Dkt. No. 24-1 at 2.) Therefore, the Court focuses on the Requests for Admission. 24 2 Defendant told Plaintiff via e-mail that the requests are deemed admitted and it declined to 25 grant Plaintiff an informal extension. (Dkt. No. 24-1 at 2.) But that representation was not made to the Court. And Defendant’s failure to formally respond works as an admission by Defendant 26 that Plaintiff’s current request has merit. See LCR 7(b)(2). 1 F.2d 866, 869–70 (9th Cir. 1985) (withdrawal rejected during trial). Withdrawal does not affect 2 any other deadlines here, either. (See Dkt. No. 16.) 3 Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. No. 24) to the extent that 4 Plaintiff’s deemed admissions are WITHDRAWN. He may serve updated responses to 5 Defendant’s Requests for Admission within fourteen (14) days of this Order. If he fails to do so, 6 the deemed admissions will be revived. 7 8 DATED this 6th day of June 2025. A 9 10 11 John C. Coughenour 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26