Martono-Chai v. Empower Consulting Group LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
RANDY MARTONO-CHAI 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NUMBER: 25-662
EMPOWER CONSULTING GROUP, L.L.C., ET AL. 	SECTION: “H” (5)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is 	Plaintiff’s Motion for leave to Serve Late Responses to
Defendants’ Requests for Admission and to Withdraw Matters Deemed Admitted Under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b). (Rec. doc. 25). Defendants oppose the motion. (Rec. doc. 29). Having
reviewed the pleadings and the case law, the Court rules as follows.
I. 	Factual Background
On April 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against various Defendants alleging
claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (“RICO”), wire fraud,
interstate 	transportation 	of 	stolen 	property, 	identification 	theft, 	travel 	in 	aid 	of
racketeering, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Defend Trade Secrets Act, and the
Lanham Act. 	Plaintiff seeks recovery of over $65,000.00 in direct payments made to
Defendants, plus more than $100,000.00 in outstanding debt resulting from Defendants’
fraud and contract breaches. Plaintiff also seeks treble damages and other relief available
under the federal RICO statute.
On November 13, 2025, Defendants propounded on Plaintiff discovery requests
with requests for admission, interrogatories, and requests for production of documents.
Plaintiff admits that he failed to timely respond to the requests for admission within the
time contemplated by Federal Rule of Civil procedure 36(a)(3) – i.e., 30 days. (Rec. doc. 25
at 1). 	Plaintiff admits that the requests for admission are thus deemed admitted by
Case 2:25-cv-00662-JTM-MBN Document 41 Filed 03/27/26 Page 1 of 5

2
operation of law. 	(Id.). 	Plaintiff now seeks to withdraw the admitted requests for
admission and serve late responses. (Id.).
II. 	Law and Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)states in pertinent part:
A party may serve upon any other party a written request for the admission,
for purposes of the pending action only, of the truth of any matters within the
scope of Rule 26(b) set forth in the request that relate to statements or
opinions of fact or of the application of law to fact, including the genuineness
of any documents described in the request . . .
The matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after service of the request, or
within such shorter or longer time as the court may allow or as the parties
may agree to in writing, subject to Rule 29, the party to whom the request is
directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a written answer or
objection addressed to the matter . . .
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a). Rule 36 allows litigants to request admissions as to a broad range of
matters, including ultimate facts, as well as applications of law to fact. See, e.g., In re Carney,
258 F.3d 415, 418-19 (5th Cir. 2001); Stubbs v. Comm'r Internal Rev., 797 F.2d 936, 938
(11th Cir. 1986); Campbell v. Spectrum Automation Co., 601 F.2d 246, 253 (6th Cir. 1979);
c.f. Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Welles, 60 F. Supp. 2d 1050, 1057 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (“Requests for
admissions cannot be used to compel an admission of a conclusion of law.”); Kosta v.
Connolly, 709 F. Supp. 592, 594 (E.D. Pa. 1989) (suggesting that Rule 36 should not be
employed to establish facts that are obviously in dispute). Such breadth allows litigants to
winnow down issues prior to trial and thus focus their energy and resources on disputed
matters. 	WRIGHT, MILLER & MARCUS, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Civil 2d §
2254 (1994). For Rule 36 to be effective in this regard, litigants must be able to rely on the
fact that matters admitted will not later be subject to challenge. 	Am. Auto. Ass'n v. AAA
Legal Clinic, 930 F.2d 1117, 1119 (5th Cir. 1991). 	Thus, Rule 36(b) provides that “[a]ny
Case 2:25-cv-00662-JTM-MBN Document 41 Filed 03/27/26 Page 2 of 5

3
matter admitted . . . is conclusively established unless the court on motion permits
withdrawal or amendment of the admission.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b).
The Fifth Circuit has stressed that a deemed admission can only be withdrawn or
amended by motion in accordance with Rule 36(b). Am. Auto., 930 F.2d at 1120. 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. Id. at 1119 (citations omitted); Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b). Even when these two factors are
established, a district court still has discretion to deny a request for leave to withdraw or
amend an admission. United States v. Kasuboski, 834 F.2d 1345, 1350 n.7 (7th Cir. 1987)
(“[R]ule 36(b) allows withdrawal of admissions if certain conditions are met and the
district court, in its discretion, permits the withdrawal.”); Donovan v. Carls Drug Co., Inc.,
703 F.2d 650, 652 (2d Cir. 1983) (“Because the language of [Rule 36(b)] is permissive, the
court is not required to make an exception to Rule 36 even if both the merits and the
prejudice issues cut in favor of the party seeking exception to the rule.”).
Under present circumstances, this Court has no problem finding that the
withdrawal of the deemed admissions will serve the presentation of the case on the merits.
Refusing to permit Plaintiff to withdraw the admissions would all but eliminate the
presentation of the merits of this case. Am. Animal Health Inc. v. Huvepharma Inc., No. 3:22-
CV-02605-M, 2023 WL 6538089, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2023).
The Court finds that the second factor also weighs in favor of withdrawal. The Fifth
Circuit has recognized that 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
Case 2:25-cv-00662-JTM-MBN Document 41 Filed 03/27/26 Page 3 of 5

4
obtain evidence upon withdrawal or amendment of an admission.’” Le v. Cheesecake
Factory Restaurants Inc., No. 06-20006, 2007 WL 715260, at *3 (5th Cir. Mar. 6, 2007)
(quoting Am. Auto. Ass'n, 930 F.2d at 1120). Given that Defendants rely solely on their
argument that the withdrawal of Plaintiff's deemed admissions will defeat a motion for
summary judgment that they intend to file at some point in the future, the Court finds that
granting Plaintiff’s motion will require only that Defendants will likely need to obtain
evidence in support of their case – as any typical defendant is required to do.
The circumstances and timing of the case suggest that the prejudice to
Defendants resulting specifically from withdrawal of the deemed admissions is
minimal. Pro se Plaintiff acted diligently in seeking to withdraw the deemed admissions
two weeks after he learned that the requests were deemed admitted. Moreover, there is
no Scheduling Order in this lawsuit yet, and no deadlines will be compromised by
allowing withdrawal. As noted, even though Defendants’ requests for admission were
deemed admitted, Defendants have not yet filed their motion for summary judgment, so
there is no imminent ruling from the District Court on any such motion. Defendants also
rely on the argument that Plaintiff now seeks to amend his Complaint, but that motion to
amend was never before this Court and the District Court has already granted it. (Rec.
doc. 27). That argument is thus moot. Under these circumstances, the Court finds no
substantial prejudice to Defendants in allowing withdrawal of the deemed admissions.
However, one caveat: Plaintiff shall redraft his proposed responses to the
requests for admissions (rec. doc. 25-2) with no objections no later than 14 days
from the date of this Order. All objections have been waived as Plaintiff failed to
respond
Case 2:25-cv-00662-JTM-MBN Document 41 Filed 03/27/26 Page 4 of 5

5
timely to the requests. Plaintiff’s only recourse now is to admit, to deny, or to state that he
can neither admit or deny the requests for admission and explain the reason for which he
cannot do so.
III. 	Conclusion
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for leave to Serve Late Responses to
Defendants’ Requests for Admission and to Withdraw Matters Deemed Admitted Under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b) (rec. doc. 25) is GRANTED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 	day of 	, 2026.
MICHAEL B. NORTH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
March	26th
Case 2:25-cv-00662-JTM-MBN Document 41 Filed 03/27/26 Page 5 of 5