Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
James Edward Brown and West Coast-Hegenberger Properties, LLC submitted a discovery letter presenting three disputes. First, Brown had included a damages calculation in his initial disclosures but had not produced documents or evidence supporting the figures. He stated that he would make a good-faith production of responsive, nonprivileged documents in his possession and supplement the production as he obtained additional material. Second, Brown had not responded to interrogatories and requests for production served on August 4, 2026. He attributed the delay to an incorrect email address and later correspondence that allegedly numbered the requests differently. Third, Brown did not respond within 30 days to requests for admission served on August 4.
The defendant filed a Notice of Deemed Admissions on September 9, 2026, and Brown submitted his RFA responses that same day. The next day, he filed a request to withdraw the deemed admissions and treat his September 9 responses as operative, although the filing was not docketed as a motion on CM/ECF. Judge Chen's September 11 order referred discovery disputes to a magistrate judge and stated that the Rule 36 dispute should be resolved in that forum. The discovery letter also sought production within seven days, automatic waiver of objections to the late interrogatory and RFP responses, and relief based on the deemed admissions.
The Court’s Holding
The court ordered Brown to produce the responsive, nonprivileged damages-supporting documents already in his possession by October 30, 2026, and to supplement under Rule 26(e) as he obtained further material. It explained that Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) requires both a damages computation and access to the supporting evidentiary material, while recognizing that an initial disclosure is a preliminary assessment subject to revision. Because Brown did not object to producing the documentation, the court found the defendant's adequacy challenge and Rule 37(c)(1) preclusion arguments prematurely raised. It did not decide those issues and stated that the parties could raise them at an appropriate time.
The court next ordered responses to Interrogatories 1-14 and RFPs 1-10 by November 6, 2026. The exhibits showed that the defendant retransmitted the requests on August 4 to the email address Brown had used, making responses due September 3 under Rules 33 and 34. Brown did not convincingly explain his subsequent failure to respond. The court nevertheless declined to deem his objections automatically waived. Rule 33(b)(4) permits an untimely objection to be excused for good cause, and the cited authorities disfavor automatic Rule 34 waiver. Considering Brown's unrepresented status, the absence of prejudice, and the lack of evidence of bad faith, the court declined to apply waiver on this record.
Finally, the court granted Brown's request to withdraw his deemed admissions and deemed his September 9 responses operative. Under Rule 36(b) and Conlon v. United States, withdrawal must promote presentation of the action on its merits and the court must not be persuaded that withdrawal will prejudice the requesting party in litigating the merits. Both factors favored relief. The admissions would eliminate all of Brown's claimed damages and liability theories, while the defendant received his responses six days after they were due and did not explain how that relatively short delay meaningfully prejudiced trial preparation at this early stage.
Key Takeaways
- Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) requires a damages computation and access to its supporting documents, and Rule 26(e) imposes a continuing duty to supplement incomplete or incorrect disclosures.
- The order set an October 30, 2026 deadline for existing damages-supporting documents and a November 6, 2026 deadline for responses to Interrogatories 1-14 and RFPs 1-10.
- Late interrogatory and RFP responses did not produce automatic waiver here because the court considered the applicable rules and waiver factors, including pro se status, prejudice, and bad faith.
- The court left the adequacy of the initial disclosures and possible Rule 37(c)(1) preclusion open rather than deciding those prematurely raised issues.
- Withdrawal of deemed admissions was granted because it permitted merits adjudication and the defendant did not demonstrate meaningful trial prejudice from the six-day delay.
Why It Matters
This discovery order enforces concrete response deadlines while avoiding sanctions that would prevent adjudication on the merits. It separates mandatory production of existing damages-supporting material from unresolved questions about disclosure adequacy and preclusion, and it applies a fact-specific waiver analysis rather than treating lateness as automatically fatal to every objection.
The Rule 36 ruling is equally specific to the record: the deemed admissions would have disposed of all claimed damages and liability theories, but the responses arrived only six days late and no meaningful trial prejudice was shown. The order resolves the referred discovery disputes; it does not decide the underlying claims or enter a final judgment. As an unpublished district-court discovery order, it documents the court's application of the cited rules and authorities rather than establishing binding appellate precedent.