Judge Serena R. Murillo, Case 20STCV19456 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 20STCV19456, Date: 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV19456 Hearing Date: December 7, 2022 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff Pablo Arrendondo Padron’s motions to amend admissions 7, 15, and 18 in Requests for Admissions, Set One is GRANTED.

Legal Standard

“The court may permit withdrawal or amendment of an admission only if it determines that the admission was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, and that the party who obtained the admission will not be substantially prejudiced in maintaining that party's action or defense on the merits.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.300(b).)¿ “The court may impose conditions on the granting of the motion that are just, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) An order that the party who obtained the admission be permitted to pursue additional discovery related to the matter involved in the withdrawn or amended admission. (2) An order that the costs of any additional discovery be borne in whole or in part by the party withdrawing or amending the admission.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc.¿§¿2033.300(c)(1)-(2).)

“[A]ny¿doubts in ruling on a motion to withdraw or amend an admission must be resolved in favor of the moving party.”¿¿(New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court¿(2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1408 [“The record here does not clearly establish that [responding party’s mistake in admitting the matter was inexcusable or show that the withdrawal of the admission would substantially prejudice the [propounding party.”] Such requirement comports with the policy in favor of trial being held on the merits.¿¿(See id.)¿¿“The¿court’s discretion to¿deny a motion under [C.C.P.¿§¿2033.300]¿is limited to circumstances where it is clear that the mistake, inadvertence, or¿neglect was inexcusable, or where it is clear that the withdrawal or amendment would substantially prejudice the party who obtained the admission in maintaining that party’s action or defense on the merits.”¿¿(Id. at 1420-21.)¿

Discussion

Plaintiff moves for leave to amend his request for admissions relating to his ability to drive and work, arguing that at the time of Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s Request for Admissions, Set No. 1, Plaintiff was working and driving. The true extent of Plaintiff’s injuries and its implications were not yet fully known. Plaintiff came to understand the brevity of his injuries, including the limitations his Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) posed and his need for surgical intervention to his spine and brain to correct the Chiari I Malformation he was suffering from as a result of this incident. On February 2, 2022, Plaintiff underwent surgery. Since the surgery and as a result of the decline in Plaintiff’s neurocognitive function, Plaintiff has been unable to work (construction) and has been advised by his treating physicians to refrain from driving. Thus, as a result of mistake, inadvertence, and/or excusable neglect, Plaintiff's responses contained erroneous admissions relating to Plaintiff’s loss of earning claim, and ability to drive. Plaintiff argues that the amendment of the admissions will not substantially prejudice Defendant because the amendments to will not necessitate further discovery as Defendant is already in possession of documents relating to Plaintiff’s loss of earnings, and has also deposed the Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s previous manager.

Defendant argues in opposition that in October 2020, Plaintiff admitted he was not claiming loss of earnings. In October 2021, Plaintiff stopped working, but he waited until November 2022 to amend his admissions. The long delay in seeking relief justifies denying relief, because Plaintiff was not diligent. Defendant would suffer substantial prejudice if Plaintiff is allowed to amend, because Defendant has been evaluating the case and preparing a defense for two years under the guise that Plaintiff was not claiming loss of earnings. Defendant only has limited evidence of Plaintiff’s loss of earnings. The depositions of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s previous supervisor did not focus on loss of earnings. They focused on the effect the subject accident had on Plaintiff’s cognitive abilities, because at the time, Plaintiff claimed traumatic brain injury, but not loss of earnings. Seeking relief after those depositions deprived Defendant of discovery. If the Court grants the motion, the Court should allow Defendant to do additional discovery, and order Plaintiff to bear the costs of same.

As to diligence, Plaintiff states he had no intention to stop working. Rather he remained hopeful his treatment would allow him to resume working. However, that was not the case. Instead, some of the Plaintiff’s symptoms progressively worsened necessitating the need for an emergency brain surgery on February 2, 2022. Moreover, Plaintiff states that he treated at Neuro Skills, which concluded in May of 2022, and only then did he learn of his condition and its limitations and discovered was unable to work. Further, at the conclusion of the Plaintiff’s treatment, his treatment goals were not met, and as a result, Plaintiff was advised by his treating physicians to refrain from driving, indefinitely, due to the risk his cognitive deficits posed to other drivers. This is sufficient to show that the admissions were due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

And the record fails to “clearly establish” how withdrawal of the Admissions deemed as admitted would substantially prejudice Defendant. (New Albertsons, 168 Cal.App.4th at 1420-21.) Trial in this matter is not set until May 8, 2023, which is five months away. To the extent that Defendant argues he needs to conduct additional discovery, Defendant is permitted to conduct additional written discovery, including requests for production, and form interrogatory 17.1 as to requests for admissions 7, 15, and 18, regarding Plaintiff’s loss of earnings. Defendant is permitted to depose Plaintiff, his former manager again, and the person most knowledgeable of employment at Plaintiff’s employer. These costs should be borne by Plaitniff.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions to amend admissions 7, 15, and 18 in Requests for Admissions, Set One is GRANTED.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to amend admissions is GRANTED.

Moving party is directed to give notice.