Patriot Rail Corp. v. Sierra Railroad Company
Filing
166
ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 8/1/2011 ORDERING 159 Sierra's Request for Review and Motion for Relief is DENIED. (Reader, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
PATRIOT RAIL CORP.,
12
No. 2:09-cv-00009-MCE-EFB
Plaintiff,
13
v.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
14
SIERRA RAILROAD COMPANY,
15
Defendants.
________________________
16
And Related Counterclaim.
17
18
----oo0oo----
19
20
Defendant Sierra Railroad Company (“Sierra”) has filed a
21
Request for Review by the District Court of the Magistrate
22
Judge’s Ruling (ECF No. 157) granting Plaintiff Patriot Rail
23
Corp.’s (“Patriot’s”) Motion for a Protective Order (ECF No.
24
146).
25
enforce an order and subpoena seeking financial records from a
26
third party, UBS Investment Bank (“UBS”).
27
///
28
///
The protective order prevents further efforts by Sierra to
1
Sierra requests review on grounds that the Magistrate Judge’s
2
order was “clearly erroneous or is contrary to law” pursuant to
3
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a).1
4
joints with its Request a Motion for Relief pursuant to
5
Rule 60(b) or a modification of the Pretrial Scheduling Order
6
(“PTSO”) pursuant to Rule 16(b)(4). (Def.’s Req. for Review, 1:5-
7
9, May 19, 2011, ECF No. 159).
8
Alternatively, Sierra
For the reasons set forth below, Sierra’s Request is denied.
9
BACKGROUND
10
11
12
This case stems from unsuccessful negotiations between the
13
parties for Patriot’s acquisition of Sierra. Patriot seeks
14
monetary damages for breach of contract, breach of implied
15
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, and unfair
16
competition.
17
the same theories, as well as intentional and negligent
18
interference with prospective economic advantage,
19
misappropriation of trade secrets, and coercion. (Joint Status
20
Report, 2-3, Mar. 6, 2009, ECF No. 15).
Sierra, in turn, is countersuing for damages under
21
The current Request (ECF No. 159) relates to a subpoena
22
originally issued by Sierra to UBS on June 8, 2010, 10 days prior
23
to the June 18, 2010 non-expert discovery cutoff.
24
which had already been extended twice, was extended again to
25
June 25, 2010, then once more to what the Magistrate Judge and
26
Patriot presumed was a new cut-off date of September 10, 2010.
The cutoff,
27
1
28
All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure unless otherwise noted.
2
1
(See Orders Amending Pretrial Scheduling Order, ECF Nos. 100 &
2
104).
3
second order indicates that September 10 was only the “[l]ast day
4
for third parties to respond” to requests, not the deadline for
5
them to enforce discovery requests. (Def.’s Req. 1:16-19, ECF
6
No. 159).
7
Sierra, however, contends that the plain language of the
On March 17, 2011, Sierra filed a Motion to Compel against
8
UBS in the Southern District of New York (where UBS is
9
headquartered).
The motion was withdrawn when an agreement was
10
apparently reached with UBS to produce the documents. (Id. at 6).
11
On May 5, 2011, the Magistrate Judge granted Patriot’s Motion for
12
a Protective Order preventing further efforts by Sierra to obtain
13
the documents from UBS on grounds that those efforts were
14
untimely. Sierra’s current Request asks this Court to reverse the
15
Magistrate Judge’s order pursuant to Rule 72(a) or alternatively
16
to modify the PTSO pursuant to Rules 60(b) or 16(b)(4).
17
ANALYSIS
18
A.
19
Rule 72(a) Review
20
21
In reviewing a magistrate judge’s determination, the
22
assigned judge shall apply the “clearly erroneous or contrary to
23
law” standard of review set forth in Local Rule 72-303(f), as
24
specifically authorized by Rule 72(a) and 28 U.S.C.
25
§ 636(b)(1)(A). Under this standard, the Court must accept a
26
magistrate judge’s decision unless it has a “definite and firm
27
conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
28
///
3
1
Concrete Pipe & Products of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers
2
Pension Trust for So. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993).
3
Court believes the conclusions reached by the magistrate judge
4
were at least plausible, after considering the record in its
5
entirety, the Court will not reverse even if convinced that it
6
would have weighed the evidence differently.
7
Supply Inc. v. Universal Elec. Co., Inc., 104 F.3d 1137, 1141
8
(9th Cir. 1997).
9
say that the Magistrate Judge’s order was “clearly erroneous or
If the
Phoenix Eng. &
After reviewing the evidence, this Court cannot
10
contrary to law” as the standard has been defined.
11
language of the order extending the deadline to September 10,
12
2010 was arguably vague, the Magistrate Judge indicated that he
13
based his holding both on the fact that applicable local rules do
14
not allow indefinite extensions of time and a lack of due
15
diligence exercised by Sierra. (Tr. Of Proceedings, 10-11, May 2,
16
2011, ECF No. 160).
17
While the
Local Rule 144 states that “[n]o open extensions of time by
18
stipulation of the parties will be recognized.”
L.R. 144(a).
19
Consequently, the interpretation of September 10, 2010 as the
20
non-expert discovery cut-off appears to be the most reasonable
21
interpretation.
22
interpreting it as such would have given them no time to enforce
23
the subpoena following UBS’s failure to produce by the deadline.
24
(Def.’s Req. 9:26-28, ECF No. 159).
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
Sierra contends otherwise, claiming that
4
1
However, even if this Court were to adopt Sierra’s
2
interpretation of the September 10 date, the Magistrate Judge was
3
well within the law in declaring that the six months it took
4
Sierra to file a Motion to Compel - from September 10, 2010 to
5
March 17, 2011 - demonstrated a lack of due diligence and thus
6
made it untimely.
7
622 (D. Nev. 1999) (“If the moving party has unduly delayed, the
8
court may conclude that the motion [to compel] is untimely”);
9
Bredemus v. Int’l Paper Co., 252 F.R.D. 529, 534 (D. Minn. 2008)
Gault v. Nabisco Biscuit Co., 184 F.R.D. 620,
10
(the trial court generally has considerable discretion in
11
granting or denying discovery requests and it is not an abuse of
12
discretion to deny a discovery request that is untimely); In re
13
Health Mgmt., Inc., 1999 WL 33594132, at *5-6 (E.D.N.Y.
14
Sept. 25, 1999) (finding no error in denial of motion to
15
compel as untimely based on undue delay); see also
16
Ayala-Gerena v. Bristol Myers-Squibb Co., 95 F.3d 86 (1st Cir.
17
1996) (finding no abuse of discretion by the district court in
18
denying appellant’s motion to compel where appellant waited more
19
than one month after the second extended discovery deadline).
20
Sierra’s explanation for the delay is that Patriot’s Summary
21
Judgment Motion, filed on August 26, 2010, was not denied until
22
February 1, 2011.
23
subpoena at this time...would have squandered judicial
24
resources,” because the documents would have become irrelevant if
25
the motion was granted. (Def.’s Req. 6:3-8, ECF No. 159).
26
Sierra claims that “moving to enforce the
This explanation, however, does not address the six-week gap
27
between the February 1, 2011 ruling and Sierra’s March 17, 2011
28
Motion to Compel.
5
1
If Sierra was under the assumption that September 10, 2010 was
2
only the deadline for UBS to respond, it was still under a duty
3
to begin enforcement as soon as feasible.
4
Sierra’s argument that pursuing enforcement of the subpoena while
5
the summary judgment was pending was a waste of resources, to
6
demonstrate due diligence Sierra should have filed its motion
7
shortly after the decision was rendered. Sierra offers no
8
explanation for why it waited 44 more days to file the motion,
9
despite the fact that all other significant discovery deadlines,
Even accepting
10
as well as the last day to file dispositive motions had long
11
expired. (Stipulation and Order, 3, July 27, 2010, ECF No. 104).
12
For the reasons detailed above, this court has no “definite
13
and firm conviction” that the Magistrate Judge’s order was
14
“clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”
15
the order is not justified under Rule 72(a).
Therefore, relief from
16
B.
17
Review under Rules 60(b) and 16(b)(4)
18
19
Sierra also seeks alternative relief under Rule 60(b) or a
20
modification of the PTSO under this Court’s discretion pursuant
21
to Rule 16(b)(4).
22
Rule 60(b) enumerates the grounds upon which a motion for
23
relief from an order or judgment may be made. It specifies that:
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
6
1
On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court
may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative
from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the
following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise
or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence
which by due diligence could not have been discovered
before the court’s decision; (3) fraud by the adverse
party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has
been satisfied; or (6) any other reason justifying
relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
2
3
4
5
6
7
Mere dissatisfaction with the court’s order or belief that the
8
court is wrong in its decision are not adequate grounds for
9
relief.
Richardson v. Ayers, 2009 WL 1528183, *1 (N.D. Cal.
10
May 29, 2009). Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is available only under
11
extraordinary circumstances.
12
Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981).
13
Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v.
To justify relief under Rule 60(b), Sierra urges an analysis
14
of factors applied by the Ninth Circuit in Pincay v. Andrews,
15
389 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2004).
16
sitting en banc, affirmed the district court’s excusal of a
17
calendaring mistake that caused an attorney to miss the thirty-
18
day deadline for filing an appeal.
19
issues including both the lack of any prejudice and the absence
20
of any bad faith in the calendaring error at issue, the Pincay
21
court determined that the district court did not abuse its
22
discretion in allowing the attorney to file for an extension.
23
Id.
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
In Pincay, the Ninth Circuit,
7
Id. at 856.
After looking at
1
Applying the Pincay factors to the present case, however, is
2
unnecessary.
As explained above, even accepting Sierra’s
3
interpretation of September 10, 2010 as only the deadline for UBS
4
to respond, Sierra was still required to use due diligence in
5
pursuing enforcement and has provided no explanation for the 44-
6
day gap between the summary judgment ruling and its Motion to
7
Compel.
8
not solely on the reasonable interpretation of September 10, 2010
9
as the non-expert discovery cutoff, but also on its assessment
This Court bases its decision to deny Sierra’s Request
10
that Sierra did not exercise due diligence in pursuing
11
enforcement.
12
the September 10 deadline under Rule 60(b) would not excuse
13
Sierra’s untimely motion and, thus, does not justify the
14
requested relief.
15
Therefore, excusing the mistaken interpretation of
Similar reasoning applies to Sierra’s request to modify the
16
PTSO.
The scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause
17
and with the judge’s consent.”
18
Rule’s “good cause” standard primarily considers the diligence of
19
the party seeking the amendment.
20
975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).
21
the pretrial schedule “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the
22
diligence of the party seeking the extension.”
Fed. R. Civ. P.
23
16 advisory committee’s notes (1983 amendment).
Because Sierra
24
has not demonstrated such diligence, this Court also declines to
25
modify the PTSO at this time.
26
///
27
///
28
///
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).
The
Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,
8
The district court may modify
CONCLUSION
1
2
3
4
5
6
For the foregoing reasons, Sierra’s Request for Review and
Motion for Relief (ECF No. 159) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 1, 2011
7
8
9
_____________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?