Motion to Withdraw or Amend Responses to Requests for Admissions

“Allowing withdrawals or amendments to admissions ‘emphasizes the importance of having the action resolved on the merits, while at the same time assuring each party that justified reliance on an admission in preparation for trial will not operate to his prejudice.’” (Agfirst Farmers Coop. v. Diamond C Dairy, LLC, 827 N.W.2d 843, 850 [S.D. 2013] quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(b), advisory committee's note, 1970 Amendment, subdivision (b) [describing the purpose of the federal counterpart to South Dakota's rule].)

Filing the Motion to Withdraw or Amend Admissions

“A party may request permission from the court to amend or withdraw its responses to requests for admissions.” (Agfirst Farmers Coop. v. Diamond C Dairy, LLC, 827 N.W.2d 843, 850 [S.D. 2013] citing SDCL 15–6–36(b) [providing that ‘the court may permit withdrawal or amendment when the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved thereby and the party who obtained the admission fails to satisfy the court that withdrawal or amendment will prejudice that party in maintaining his action or defense on the merits”.])

Requirements for Allowing Amendment of Withdrawal of Admissions

In determining whether to allow amendment or withdrawal of a party's admission, a two-part test is utilized:

1. whether the presentation of the merits is subserved by allowing the withdrawal or amendment, and
2. whether the adverse party is prejudiced in the presentation of their case.

(Agfirst Farmers Coop. v. Diamond C Dairy, LLC, 827 N.W.2d 843, 850 [S.D. 2013].)

Appellate Cases Discussing Withdrawal or Amendment of Admissions

A “motion to permit late filing of their answers to the requests for admissions as tantamount to a motion for withdrawal or amendment of the admissions.” (Tank v. Munstedt, 504 N.W.2d 866, 868 [S.D. 1993] citing Warren v. International Broth. of Teamsters, Etc., 544 F.2d 334 [8th Cir. 1976] [allowing late filing of answers to request for admissions equivalent to allowing party to withdraw admissions made by operation of Rule 36(a)].)

“In that regard, SDCL 15-6-36(b) provides in pertinent part:

‘Subject to the provisions of § 15-6-16 governing amendment of a pretrial order, the court may permit withdrawal or amendment when the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved thereby and the party who obtained the admission fails to satisfy the court that withdrawal or amendment will prejudice him in maintaining his action or defense on the merits.’” (Tank v. Munstedt, 504 N.W.2d 866, 868 [S.D. 1993] quoting SDCL 15-6-36(b).)

“Just as in Tank, allowing the Dybvigs to answer the requests for admissions would serve the presentation of the merits of this case because the merits were not reached.... Because allowing the Dybvigs to answer would serve the presentation of the merits of the case, Velocity needed to demonstrate to the trial court that it would be prejudiced if the Dybvigs were allowed to answer. In this case, [t]he prejudice contemplated by the Rule is not simply that the party who initially obtained the admission will now have to convince the fact finder of its truth. Rather, it relates to the difficulty a party may face in proving its case, e.g., caused by the unavailability of key witnesses, because of the sudden need to obtain evidence with respect to the questions previously answered by the admissions.” (Velocity Invs., LLC v. Dybvig Installations, Inc., 833 N.W.2d 41, 44 [S.D. 2013][internal citations omitted].)