Case Summary

P1524 REVIEW DENIED Any doubts in ruling on a motion to withdraw or amend an admission should be resolved in favor of the moving party, unless it is clear that the mistake, inadvertence or neglect that led to the admission was inexcusable, or that the other party would be substantially prejudiced by withdrawal of the admission; a motion to withdraw an admission that there appeared to be a bag of ice on the floor in a photograph of an accident scene in a supermarket on the ground that on subsequent examination the item in question appeared to be a cervical collar brought to the scene by paramedics raised sufficient doubt to require that the motion be granted; since the party requesting the admission had vigorously pursued discovery and may be given an opportunity to conduct further discovery, no prejudice resulted; unless discovery misconduct is egregious, sanctions should not be ordered without a prior order compelling discovery.

NEW ALBERTSONS v SUPERIOR COURT (Withdrawn Admission) 168 CA4 1403 [See: CCP 2016.010 etseq; Vallbona v Springer 43 CA4 1525, T/AT 5/96; Mileikowsky v. Tenet 128 CA4 262, P/AT 5/05]