299 F.R.D. 61
S.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Plaintiffs allege trademark/copyright infringement, counterfeiting, dilution, and unfair competition regarding TT Designs on Accused Products; Counterclaimants allege Isis Cross Design usage and related claims.
- On Nov. 27, 2013, plaintiffs served 50 RFAs; responses due within 30 days, any unaddressed were deemed admitted.
- Defendants did not respond timely; January 31, 2014 responses were filed over a month late.
- March 3, 2014, defendants sought conference to withdraw deemed admissions; court denied conference and withdrawal request by March 10 endorsement.
- March 17, 2014, defendants moved to withdraw and amend the deemed admissions using January 31 responses; motion fully submitted March 24.
- Court grants motion, concluding withdrawal promotes merits and leaves no compelling prejudice to plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to grant withdrawal and amendment of deemed admissions under Rule 36(b). | Plaintiffs claim admissions are dispositive and would promote merits. | Withdrawal necessary to present merits and avoid unfair prejudice; admissions not protected if prejudicial. | Yes; court grants withdrawal to promote merits with no undue prejudice to plaintiffs. |
| Whether plaintiffs would be prejudiced by withdrawal. | Withdrawal would prejudice ability to prove cases due to lost admissions. | Prejudice minimal; discovery ongoing; defendants’ tardiness not overriding meritorious presentation. | No substantial prejudice; merits-oriented relief justified. |
Key Cases Cited
- Conlon v. United States, 474 F.3d 616 (9th Cir. 2007) (RFAs should not be used to harass; promotes truth-seeking and efficiency)
- Donovan v. Carls Drug Co., Inc., 703 F.2d 650 (2d Cir. 1983) (Rule 36(b) balance against prejudice)
- McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128 (1988) (Policy standard for Rule 36(b) withdrawal (not excusable neglect required))
- Hadley v. United States, 45 F.3d 1345 (9th Cir. 1995) (Withdrawal may be warranted where admissions are dispositive and prejudice minimal)
- Kerry Steel, Inc. v. Paragon Indus., Inc., 106 F.3d 147 (6th Cir. 1997) (Prejudice considerations in Rule 36(b))