United States of America v. Tammy Blakey and Flying T Ranch, Inc.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: December 30, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01910
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 AT SEATTLE 5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. C23-1910-RSM 6 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 7 MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND v. AMEND ANSWERS TO REQUESTS 8 FOR ADMISSIONS TAMMY BLAKEY and FLYING T RANCH, INC., 9 Defendants. 10

11 This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Withdraw and Amend Answers to 12 Requests for Admissions filed by Defendant Tammy Blakey and Defendant Flying T Ranch, Inc. 13 (collectively, “Defendants”). Dkt. #27. The Government opposes. Dkt. #31. 14 The fact discovery cutoff in this case passed almost seven months ago, with expert 15 discovery closing this month, and trial is set for April 27, 2026. Dkt. #25. After staying the case 16 to explore settlement (without pausing discovery), the parties bifurcated discovery to reach an 17 earlier determination on liability and significantly limit the issues in this case. Dkt. #19. On 18 December 20, 2024, the Government served requests for nine admissions on Defendants, which 19 focused on the Government’s prima facie liability case. Dkt. #33, Ex. A at 24-25, 30-31. After 20 a thirty-day extension to respond, Defendants admitted all nine requests. Dkts. #27-1, #33, Ex. 21 B at 51. On June 9, 2025, Defendants filed the instant Motion, ten days after the fact discovery 22 deadline of May 30, 2025. 23 A ”matter” admitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 is considered “exclusively 24 1 established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b). “[T]he court may permit withdrawal or amendment if it would promote 2 the presentation of the merits of the action and if the court is not persuaded that it would prejudice 3 the requesting party in maintaining or defending the action on the merits.” Id. This rule is 4 permissive, thus if the Court finds that Rule 36(b)’s elements are met, the Court may permit 5 withdrawal. See Colon v. United States, 474 F.3d 616, 624-25 (9th Cir. 2007). 6 “The first half of the test in Rule 36(b) is satisfied when upholding the admissions would 7 practically eliminate any presentation of the merits of the case.” Hadley v. United States, 45 F.3d 8 1345, 1348 (9th Cir. 1995). The second half provides that “[t]he party relying on the deemed 9 admission has the burden of proving prejudice.” Conlon v. United States, 474 F.3d 616, 622 (9th 10 Cir. 2007). 11 Defendants assert that, without leave to withdraw and amend, their “case will suffer 12 irretrievable harm” because the contended admissions make “factual assumptions about 13 ownership and jurisdictional assumptions that are [the] subject of dispute.” Dkt. #27 at 5-6. The 14 Government argues that “Defendants have never asserted a legal or factual basis to contest the 15 United States’ prima facie case on liability” but “have consistently asserted that they are not 16 liable because of certain affirmative defenses or jurisdictional arguments[.]” Dkt. #31 at 6. Thus, 17 Defendants’ “arguments remain live issues in this case” because Defendants’ admissions only 18 get to liability, not “jurisdiction or any affirmative defense.” Id. The Government contends that 19 Defendants’ request here is not based on “newly discovered facts that would resist . . . liability, 20 but a change in litigation strategy that continues to relate to jurisdictional arguments and 21 affirmative defenses.” Id. 22 As the Government states, Defendants’ admissions here likely end any determination on 23 the merits of liability, and the Government concedes that there is no prejudice. Dkt. #31 at 5. 24 1 However, the merits of this case are not “practically eliminated” because all other issues but liability remain. Furthermore, although Rule 36’s two factors are necessary for withdrawal, “the 2 text of Rule 36(b) is permissive. . . . Therefore, when a district court finds that the merits of the 3 action will be subserved and the nonmoving party will not be prejudiced, it ‘may’ allow 4 withdrawal, but is not required to do so[.]” Conlon, 474 F.3d at 624-25. The Court “may consider 5 other factors, including whether the moving party can show good cause for the delay and whether 6 the moving party appears to have a strong case on the merits.” Id. at 625. 7 Defendants’ basis for withdrawing and amending their admissions is “factual 8 assumptions about ownership and jurisdictional assumptions that are [the] subject of dispute.” 9 Dkt. #27 at 5-6. The Court agrees with the Government, however, that the Requests for 10 Admissions provided in December 2024 “included lengthy definitions” that Defendants had 11 “ample time” to meet and confer on, possibly resolve, or object to before the discovery deadline. 12 Dkt. #31 at 7. Instead, Defendants provided these admissions months after receiving them and 13 after an extension that doubled their allotted response time, they provide no reasoning for 14 delaying the instant Motion, and there is no indication that “the United States used a request for 15 admissions to gain an unfair tactical advantage.” Conlon, 474 F.3d at 625. Accordingly, the 16 Court will deny Defendants’ Motion. 17 Having reviewed the instant Motion, the relevant briefing, and the remainder of the 18 record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Withdraw 19 and Amend Answers to Requests for Admissions, Dkt. #27, is DENIED. 20 DATED this 30th day of December, 2025. 21 A 22

23 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24