Hernandez v. Bobst, North America, Inc. ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL HERNANDEZ and BECKY Case No. 1:19-cv-00882-NONE-SKO HERNANDEZ, 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 13 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS 14 v. FOR ADMISSION 15 BOBST GROUP NORTH AMERICA, INC., (Doc. 36) 16 Defendant. 17 _____________________________________/ 18 19 This matter is before the Court on Defendant Bobst Group North America, Inc.’s “Motion 20 for Leave to Amend Answer to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission,” filed January 18, 2021 (the 21 “Motion”). (Doc. 36.) The parties filed their joint statement directed to the Motion, as required by 22 this Court’s Local Rule 251, on February 3, 2021.1 (Doc. 45.) The Court reviewed the parties’ 23 papers and all supporting material and found the matter suitable for decision without oral argument. 24 The hearing set for February 10, 2021, was therefore vacated. (Doc. 47.) 25 26 1 Plaintiffs separately filed an opposition to the Motion on January 27, 2021 (see Doc. 42), and Defendant filed an affidavit of Mr. Cartier in support of the Motion on February 5, 2021 (see Doc. 46). Although Local Rule 251, which 27 governs the Motion, does not contemplate such filings, the Court will nevertheless consider them (and overrule Plaintiffs’ objections, see Doc. 48) to the extent that they contain admissible evidence and supplement the parties’ joint 28 statement. Both parties are cautioned that any future filings that are not in compliance with the Local Rules shall be 1 Having considered the parties’ briefing, and for the reasons set forth below, the Motion will 2 be granted. I. BACKGROUND 3 4 On June 27, 2019, Plaintiffs Michael Hernandez and Becky Hernandez (collectively, 5 “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendant Bobst Group North America, Inc. (“Defendant”) 6 for injuries Mr. Hernandez allegedly sustained when his right hand was pulled into, crushed, and 7 de-gloved by a machine that folds and glues carboard boxes—the Martin Midline 924 Flexo-Folder 8 Gluer machine (the “Subject Machine”)—while he was working for his employer Pacific Southwest 9 Container (“PSC”) in November 2017. (See Doc. 1-1 (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 1, 2.) Plaintiffs allege that the 10 Subject Machine was defectively designed because the “feed roller guard” did not prevent fingers 11 and gloves from being pulled into the machine. (See id. ¶¶ 2, 19.) Defendant sold the Subject 12 Machine to PSC and serviced it in the years leading up to the November 2017 incident. (See id. ¶ 13 7.) Plaintiffs allege Defendant knew of the Subject Machine’s defective design because of prior 14 similar injuries, but neither fixed the product nor warned of the danger. (See id. ¶ 24–27.) They 15 assert claims for strict products liability, negligence, and loss of consortium against Defendant. (See 16 id.) 17 On October 25, 2019, the Court entered a Scheduling Order that set deadlines for non-expert, 18 expert disclosures, and expert discovery. (Doc. 18.) The parties twice stipulated to continue the 19 case deadlines (see Docs. 20 & 32), which the Court granted (see Docs. 22 & 33). The deadline to 20 complete non-expert discovery expired on December 8, 2020, and the deadline to disclose experts 21 expired on December 15, 2020. (See Doc. 33.) 22 In January 2020, Plaintiffs propounded a request for design documents for the feed roller 23 guard of the Subject Machine, including “the original design drawings and specifications as well as 24 any revisions.” (Doc. 45 at 4. See also Doc. 42-5 at 3.) Defendant produced several documents in 25 response to Plaintiffs’ request. (Doc. 45 at 4.) 26 On November 6, 2020, Plaintiffs deposed Defendant’s representative Michel Cartier. (Doc. 27 45 at 5. See also Doc. 36 at 2–3; Doc. 36-6.) Mr. Cartier testified that he was “unable to speak to 28 the dimensions of the pieces of the [Subject Machine] in the feeder area, including their relationship 1 to each other, having not yet received the relevant information from the manufacturer despite his 2 request.” (Doc. 45 at 5. See also Doc. 36-6 at 105:14–106:18.) Following Mr. Cartier’s deposition, 3 on November 12, 2020, Defendant supplemented its earlier production with “additional design 4 drawings” identified as Bates Number BNA003620–3622, which is at issue in the Motion (the 5 “Subject Drawings”). (Doc. 45 at 5–6. See also Doc. 42-2 ¶ 13; Doc. 42-12; Doc. 42-15.) 6 In exchange for Plaintiff not seeking a further deposition of Mr. Cartier, Defendant agreed 7 to admit to two requests for admission, which were jointly drafted by the parties. (Doc. 45 at 6. See 8 also Doc. 42-2 ¶ 13; Doc. 42-12.) On November 13, 2020, Plaintiffs served the jointly-drafted 9 requests for admission relating to the facts to which Mr. Cartier could not testify during his 10 deposition. (Doc. 45 at 6. See also Doc. 36-8.) Request for Admission No. 7 (“RFA No. 7”), which 11 is the subject of the Motion, requests that Defendant “[a]dmit that the [Subject Drawings] accurately 12 reflect the as-designed dimensions of the depicted portions of the [Subject Machine].” (Doc. 45 at 13 3; See also 36-8.) On November 17, 2020, Defendant served its responses to the requests for 14 admission, wherein it admitted RFA No. 7. (Doc. 45 at 6. See also Doc. 36-9.) Defendant’s 15 responses were verified by Mr. Cartier. (See Doc. 36-9.) 16 Defendant seeks leave from the Court to amend its answer to RFA No. 7 because it has 17 subsequently learned its admission is inaccurate. 18 II. DISCUSSION 19 In seeking leave from the Court to amend its answer to RFA No. 7, Defendant contends that 20 the feed roller guard in the Subject Drawings is depicted as 2 mm thick stainless steel, whereas the 21 Subject Machine’s uses a 3 mm thick stainless-steel guard. (Doc. 45 at 6–7.) Thus, the Subject 22 Drawings do not “accurately reflect the as-designed dimensions of” the Subject Machine, as 23 erroneously certified by Mr. Cartier in RFA No. 7. (Id.) According to Defendant, it was not made 24 aware of the alleged error until December 2020, when its retained expert, in preparing his report in 25 rebuttal to Plaintiffs’ expert, noted the discrepancy. (Id.) 26 Plaintiffs oppose the Motion, asserting, among other things, that Defendant has not met its 27 burden to justify the amendment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b), and that granting the Motion would 28 prejudice Plaintiffs at trial. (Doc. 45 at 10–13.) 1 A. Legal Standard 2 Once admitted, a matter is conclusively established, “unless the court, on motion, permits 3 the admission to be withdrawn or amended.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b). Under Federal Rule of Civil 4 Procedure 36(b), “the court may permit withdrawal or amendment [of an admission] [1] if it would 5 promote the presentation of the merits of the action and [2] if the court is not persuaded that it would 6 prejudice the requesting party in maintaining or defending the action on the merits.” Fed. R. Civ. 7 P. 36(b). Although Rule 36(b) is “permissive, the Advisory Committee clearly intended the two 8 factors set forth in Rule 36(b) to be central to the analysis.” Conlon v. United States, 474 F.3d 616, 9 625 (9th Cir. 2007). In addition to Rule 36(b)’s two factors, the court “may consider other factors, 10 including whether the moving party can show good cause for the delay and whether the moving 11 party appears to have a strong case on the merits.” Id. 12 B. Analysis 13 1. Presentation of the Merits 14 The first prong of Rule 36(b) favors allowing Defendant to amend RFA No. 7. Plaintiffs 15 allege in their complaint that the Subject Machine’s feed roller guard’s “spacing and strength is 16 inadequate to prevent a hand from being pulled into the [M]achine.” (Compl. ¶ 2.) As the parties’ 17 submissions make clear, the thickness of the Subject Machine’s guard is in dispute, and their 18 respective experts rely on differing thicknesses for their analyses.2 (See Doc. 45 at ) The merits of 19 Plaintiffs’ claims—and Defendant’s defense thereof—depends, at least in part, on how the parties’ 20 factual dispute regarding the thickness of the Subject Machine’s feed roller guard is resolved. 21 Putting this dispute before the factfinder would promote trying the case on its merits. See Ada Cty. 22 Highway Dist. v. Rhythm Eng’g, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00584-CWD, 2017 WL 1502791, at *5 (D. 23 Idaho Apr. 25, 2017) (finding the first prong of Rule 36(b) met where movant learned during 24 discovery that its admissions were incorrect, resulting in “disputed versions of the facts”); 25 Henderson v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. C09-1723RAJ, 2010 WL 3937482, at *3 (W.D. 26 Wash. Oct. 5, 2010) (finding the court’s “interest in truthseeking and resolution of cases on their 27 merits” weighed in movant’s favor where its “inadvertent admission . . . would subvert the 28 1 presentation of [an] issue to a factfinder.”); Netscape Commc’ns Corp. v. Fed. Ins. Co., No. C 06- 2 0198 JW (PVT), 2007 WL 1288192, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2007) (“[A]llowing amendment will 3 subserve presentation of the merits because there is a legitimate factual dispute” regarding the 4 subject of the admission). Permitting Defendant to amend RFA No. 7 would also subserve the 5 presentation of the merits because it would mitigate any confusion caused by the parties’ experts’ 6 reliance on differing guard thicknesses. See Gallegos v. City of Los Angeles, 308 F.3d 987, 993 (9th 7 Cir. 2002) (District court’s decision to allow defendant police officers to withdraw their admission 8 that they “arrested” plaintiff was proper because the admission “confuse[d] this issue” and thus 9 withdrawal aided in the resolution of the case). 10 Plaintiffs contend that Defendant has failed to show that upholding RFA No. 7 under Rule 11 36(b) would “eviscerate[] its case.” (Doc. 45 at 10.) While the admission would not prevent 12 Defendant from proffering a defense to Plaintiffs’ claims, it nonetheless would “significantly 13 undermine,” for example, Defendant’s ability to rebut Plaintiffs’ expert’s opinion concerning this 14 issue. N. Am. Lubricants Co. v. Terry, No. CIV S-11-1284 KJM GGH, 2012 WL 113788, at *4 15 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012) (finding first prong of Rule 36(b) satisfied even where “some of plaintiff’s 16 claims could potentially survive the deemed admissions”). 17 In sum, the Court finds the first half of the test under Rule 36(b) is satisfied: allowing 18 Defendant to amend RFA No. 7 would aid in the resolution of this case on the merits. See Gallegos, 19 308 F.3d at 993. See also Conlon, 474 F.3d at 622 (noting that one of the goals of Rule 36(b) is 20 truth-seeking in litigation). 21 2. Prejudice to the Nonmoving Party 22 Plaintiffs have not shown prejudice resulting from the amendment of RFA No. 7. “The 23 prejudice contemplated by Rule 36(b) is ‘not simply that the party who obtained the admission will 24 now have to convince the factfinder of its truth. Rather, it relates to the difficulty a party may face 25 in proving its case, e.g., caused by the unavailability of key witnesses, because of the sudden need 26 to obtain evidence with respect to the questions previously deemed admitted.” Conlon, 474 F.3d at 27 622 (quoting Hadley v. United States, 45 F.3d 1345, 1348 (9th Cir. 1995)). The party relying on the 28 admissions has the burden of proving prejudice. Id. The focus is on the prejudice the nonmoving 1 party would suffer at trial, because most pretrial prejudice is curable. Id. at 623. 2 Plaintiffs assert that they are prejudiced because they “have no way of objectively verifying 3 the truth of [Defendant’s] proposed amendment at this point because Plaintiffs’ employer did not 4 retain the subject guard and discovery has closed.” (Doc. 45 at 12–13.) But even before RFA No. 5 7 was served, Plaintiffs were unable to “objectively verify” the thickness of the Subject Machine’s 6 feed roller guard because the original guard was unavailable. (See Doc. 45 at 13; Doc. 42-16 ¶ 7.) 7 Putting the nonmovant in the same position it was in prior to the admission, i.e., having to convince 8 the factfinder of its truth, does not constitute prejudice under Rule 36(b). See Conlon, 474 F.3d at 9 622. Nor does the fact that Plaintiffs relied on RFA No. 7 in forgoing discovery during the discovery 10 period, which has now closed, suffice to demonstrate prejudice, as any claimed prejudice may be 11 addressable through other means. See id. at 624 (“Although the United States relied on the deemed 12 admissions in choosing not to engage in any other discovery, we are reluctant to conclude that a 13 lack of discovery, without more, constitutes prejudice. The district court could have reopened the 14 discovery period, and prejudice must relate to the difficulty a party may face in proving its case at 15 trial.”) (citations omitted). See also 8B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2264 (3d ed.) (“[C]ourts should 16 explore the possibility that prejudice can be avoided by imposing other conditions rather than 17 holding a party to an untrue or unintended admission on a vital issue in a case.”). 18 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiffs will not be unduly prejudiced by 19 permitting Defendant to amend RFA No. 7. See Sonoda v. Cabrera, 255 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 20 2001) (“Regarding prejudice, the district court found that because the motion was made pre-trial 21 Sonoda would not be hindered in presenting his evidence to the factfinder. We agree and therefore 22 affirm the district court’s decision to allow withdrawal of the admissions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 23 P. 36(b).”); see also Hadley, 45 F.3d at 1349 (“We find, however, that the inconvenience the 24 government may have suffered by the withdrawal of the admissions did not rise to a level of 25 prejudice that justified a denial of the withdrawal motion. Cases finding prejudice to support a 26 denial generally show a much higher level of reliance on the admissions.”). Cf. 999 v. C.I.T. Corp., 27 776 F.2d 866, 869–70 (9th Cir. 1985) (prejudice shown when Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b) motion was 28 made in the middle of trial when the opposing party had relied heavily on the admissions at trial). 1 3. Other Factors 2 Finally, the Court observes that the “other factors” that can be considered militate toward 3 permitting Defendant to amend RFA No. 7. There was no undue delay in filing the Motion once 4 Defendant discovered the alleged error, and the Motion was timely filed pursuant to the case 5 schedule. (See Doc. 33.) There is also no evidence that Defendant’s answer to RFA No. 7 was 6 made in bad faith or for the purposes of obtaining an unfair advantage in this case, see Doc. 46.3 7 See, e.g., N. Venture Partners, LLC v. Vocus, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-00337-RS, 2016 WL 1177923, 8 at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2016) (granting motion to withdraw admissions and observing the movant 9 had “shown that it was genuinely mistaken when it responded to the requests for admission.”); 10 Henderson, 2010 WL 3937482, at *3 (fact that failure to respond to admissions was “inadvertent,” 11 as opposed to “gamesmanship or litigation misconduct,” weighed “heavily in favor of granting [] 12 request to amend.”). Accord 8B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2264 (3d ed.) (“Although an admission 13 should ordinarily be binding on the party who made it, there must be room in rare cases for a 14 different result, as when an admission no longer is true because of changed circumstances or through 15 honest error a party has made an improvident admission.”). 16 III. ORDER 17 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Bobst Group North America, Inc.’s “Motion for 18 Leave to Amend Answer to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission” (Doc. 36) is GRANTED. By no 19 later than seven (7) days from the date of this order, Defendant shall serve an amended response 20 to RFA No. 7 in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). 21 Discovery in this matter closed on January 12, 2021. If Plaintiffs wish to conduct 22 additional discovery as a result of Defendant’s amended response to RFA No. 7, the parties shall 23 meet and confer in an attempt to agree on and stipulate to a reopened discovery period. In the event 24 the parties are unable to agree, any dispute relating to the need for additional discovery, or the 25 sufficiency of Defendant’s amended response, shall be put before the Court, either formally under 26 Local Rule 251 or informally pursuant to this Court’s discovery dispute resolution process, by no 27 3 Plaintiffs also accuse Defendant of other “discovery misconduct,” which they contend gives rise to sanctions. (See 28 Doc. 45 at 8.) These issues are not the subject of the Motion and are not before the Court. Moreover, the time to raise 1 later than March 17, 2021. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Sheila K. Oberto 4 Dated: February 22, 2021 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28