Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CMP, LLC CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 24-2298

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR THE SECTION: D (1)

LAFITTE AREA INDEPENDENT

LEVEE DISTRICT

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is a Motion to Withdraw or Amend Responses to Requests for

Admissions, filed by Defendant Board of Commissioners for the Lafitte Area

Independent Levee District (“LAILD”).1 Plaintiff CMP, LLC (“CMP”) opposes the

Motion.2 After careful consideration of the parties’ memoranda, the record, and the

applicable law, the Court GRANTS the Motion.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The instant matter emanates from a discovery dispute, in which the Court has

previously detailed the factual background at length pertaining to the underlying

Requests for Admissions (“RFAs”) propounded by CMP to LAILD and LAILD’s June

28, 2025 responses thereto.3 The Court therefore only provides the factual and

procedural background as it pertains to the instant Motion.

On December 17, 2025, this Court denied as moot CMP’s Motion to have RFAs

deemed admitted, acknowledging that LAILD’s June 28, 2025 responses to CMP’s

RFAs were untimely and thus resulted in an admission as to those facts as an

1 R. Doc. 98.

2 R. Doc. 99. LAILD did not file a reply brief in support of the instant Motion.

3 See R. Doc. 96.

operation of law.4 The Court, however, found that good cause existed to grant LAILD

leave of court to file a motion to withdraw or amend its admissions due to the severity

of the facts deemed admitted and the impact the admissions may have on the pending

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Related to Issue of Liability Pursuant to

FRCP Rule 56.5

LAILD accordingly filed the instant Motion to Withdraw or Amend Responses

to Requests for Admissions on December 22, 2025.6 As an initial matter, LAILD

advises the Court that it submitted supplemental responses to its untimely responses

to CMP’s RFAs on August 21, 2025.7 LAILD specifically provides that “[a]fter the

discovery of evidence, both through documents and testimony, that goes to the merits

of this case, as well as pertain to several of CMP’s Requests for Admissions, LAILD

formally supplemented its Responses to Requests for Admissions[.]”8 Moreover,

LAILD further contends that:

[A]t the time of the original responses, LAILD had undergone member

changes in its Board of Directors and its employed staff. The information

available at the time to LAILD was limited yet LAILD provided

responses on June 28, 2025 for the reasons outlined in Rec. Doc. 51.

Through the parties and third parties document productions and

testimony additional facts were available to all. LAILD supplemented

its Responses to Request for Admissions to reflect the evidence and

information that both parties had available to them.9

4 Id. at p. 11.

5 Id.

6 R. Doc. 98.

7 R. Doc. 98-1 at p. 2.

8 Id.

9 Id. at p. 3.

Addressing its request to the Court to withdraw and/or amend its responses,

LAILD first maintains that “withdrawal/amendment promotes the presentation of

the merits of the case because if the initial responses are allowed to stand and/or

deemed admitted (1) such mistaken responses would only serve to have the case

determined not on the real merits but on information not supported by the

documentary evidence; and (2) the responses were based upon mistake and lack of

information at the time those were submitted.”10 Further, LAILD asserts that

“Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by allowing such withdrawal or amendment as the

relevant facts and documentation that was obtained, mostly from third parties, was

available to Plaintiff in the discovery period, and Plaintiff had the opportunity to

depose the companies/persons on those issues.”11 Thus, LAILD asks that “(1) to the

extent, if any, the Court finds that CMP’s Requests for Admissions are admitted due

to any alleged failure to respond timely, the Court permits withdrawal of those

admissions; and (2) the Court allow amendment of the responses to requests for

admissions as previously served upon CMP on August 21 and is attached hereto as

Exhibit B.”12

CMP opposes the Motion.13 CMP alleges that the underlying “facts must

remain admitted, although the evidence obtained in discovery establishes the same

facts. The Defendant should not be allowed at this late date to unravel obvious facts

so as to evade summary judgment through nuance and sophistry to the great

10 Id. at p. 3.

11 Id. at pp. 4–5.

12 Id. at p. 8.

13 R. Doc. 99.

prejudice of CMP, which would then have to submit extensive evidence in the form of

voluminous documentation and the testimony of many witnesses and incur the

unnecessary expense of same.”14 Thus, according to CMP, Rule 36(b) warrants denial

of the instant Motion.15

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b) provides:

A matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the

court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended.

Subject to Rule 16(e), the court may permit withdrawal or amendment

if it would promote the presentation of the merits of the action and if the

court is not persuaded that it would prejudice the requesting party in

maintaining or defending the action on the merits. An admission under

this rule is not an admission for any other purpose and cannot be used

against the party in any other proceeding.16

“In order to allow withdrawal of a deemed admission, Rule 36(b) requires that a trial

court find that withdrawal or amendment: 1) would serve the presentation of the case

on its merits, but 2) would not prejudice the party that obtained the admissions in its

presentation of the case.”17 Yet, “[e]ven when these two factors are established, a

district court still has discretion to deny a request for leave to withdraw or amend an

admission.”18

14 R. Doc. 99 at p. 5 (emphasis removed).

15 See id.

16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b).

17 In re Carney, 258 F.3d 415, 419 (5th Cir. 2001)(citing American Auto. Ass'n v. AAA Legal Clinic,

930 F.2d 1117, 1119 (5th Cir. 1991)).

18 In re Carney, 258 F.3d at 419 (citing United States v. Kasuboski, 834 F.2d 1345, 1350 n.7 (7th Cir.

1987)).

III. ANALYSIS

LAILD asks the Court to grant its request to withdraw and/or amend its

admissions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b).19 For the reasons set forth below, the

Court grants LAILD’s request to withdraw its admissions and substitute its August

21, 2025 supplemental responses to the RFAs in place of the deemed admissions.

“Although the court has considerable discretion to permit withdrawal or

amendment, a deemed admission may only be withdrawn when the moving party

satisfies the conditions set forth in Rule 36(b).”20 Regarding the first prong of Rule

36(b), whether withdrawal or amendment would serve the presentation of the case

on its merits, the Court finds that denying withdrawal would impact the presentation

of the case on the merits.

Given that CMP’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Related to Issue of

Liability Pursuant to FRCP Rule 5621 turns on the facts deemed admitted through

LAILD’s failure to timely respond to CMP’s RFAs,22 the Court finds that withdrawal

of the deemed admissions will instead promote presentation of the merits.23 In sum,

the Court agrees with LAILD that “the merits of this case should proceed on the

documentation and evidence that was produced by and to the parties and not on

19 R. Doc. 98.

20 Le v. Cheesecake Factory Restaurants Inc., No. 06-20006., 2007 WL 715260, at *2 (5th Cir. Mar. 6,

2007)(citing American Auto. Ass'n, 930 F.2d at 1119; Carney, 258 F.3d at 419).

21 R. Doc. 48.

22 R. Doc. 96.

23 See Dolet Hills Lignite Co., L.L.C. v. General Electric Co., No. CIV.A.01–2471., 2002 WL 31115259,

at *5 (E.D. La. Sept. 23, 2002)(Fallon, J.)

misinformation and mistaken responses that are contrary to and/or do not conform

to the truth and reality of the documentation and evidence.”24

Moreover, pertaining to Rule 36(b)’s second requirement, CMP will not be

prejudiced by withdrawal and/or amendment. “Prejudice does not arise under Rule

36(b) simply because the party who initially obtained the admission will now have to

convince the fact finder of its truth.”25 Rather, “courts have usually found that the

prejudice contemplated by Rule 36(b) relates to special difficulties a party may face

caused by a sudden need to obtain evidence upon withdrawal or amendment of an

admission.”26

Notedly, in an Order and Reasons being filed at the same time as this Order,

the Court’s ruling is based on evidence in the record, and the Court’s ruling on that

Motion was not impacted by the admissions.27 In fact, the Court highlights that the

August 21, 2025 supplemental responses to the RFAs provide a greater justification

for its ruling.28 CMP has not shown any prejudice, nor does the Court find that CMP

is prejudiced by the withdrawal of the deemed admissions.

Accordingly, the Court finds that withdrawal of the deemed admissions would

serve to promote the presentation of the merits and would not prejudice CMP.

Therefore, pursuant to Rule 36(b), the Court permits LAILD to withdraw its deemed

24 R. Doc. 98-1 at p. 3.

25 Express Lien, Inc. v. RoHillCo Business Services, LLC, Civil Action No. 13–4889., 2014 WL

1870621, at *2 (E.D. La. May 8, 2014)(Vance, J.)(citation modified).

26 Le v. Cheesecake Factory Restaurants Inc., No. 06-20006., 2007 WL 715260, at *3 (5th Cir. Mar. 6,

2007)(citation modified).

27 See R. Doc. 106.

28 Id.

admissions and substitute its August 21, 2025 supplemental responses in place of its

deemed admissions.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion?

is GRANTED.

New Orleans, Louisiana, January 22, 2026.

WENDY het

United States District Judge

22 R. Doc. 98.