United States of America v. Sierra Pacific Industries et al
Filing
618
ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 11/24/2014: The court requires briefing on the threshold issue as follows: Sierra Pacific shall file its brief no later than 1/15/2015. The government shall file an opposition no later than 2/17/20 15. Sierra Pacific shall then file a reply no later than 3/9/2015. Oral argument limited to the threshold issue will be heard at 2:00 p.m. on 4/6/2015. Sierra Pacific's request to reopen discovery is denied without prejudice. The 12/15/2014 hearing on the government's motion to disqualify counsel for defendants is vacated. For that motion and Sierra Pacific's motion to temporarily stay its obligations under the settlement agreement, the court will not set hearing dates or require briefing until after it resolves the threshold issue of whether Sierra Pacific can seek relief under Rule 60(d)(3). (See document for further details.) (Kirksey Smith, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
----oo0oo----
11
12
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
13
14
15
16
CIV. NO. 2:09-02445 WBS AC
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
SIERRA PACIFIC INDUSTRIES, et
al.,
Defendants,
17
18
19
AND ALL RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.
20
----oo0oo----
21
On November 24, 2014, the court held a status
22
23
conference to address defendant Sierra Pacific Industries’
24
(“Sierra Pacific”) motion to set aside the July 2012 settlement
25
of this matter pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26
60(d)(3).
27
conference.
28
The parties were represented by counsel at the
Rule 60(d)(3) provides that a court may “set aside a
1
1
judgment for fraud on the court” at any time.
2
60(d)(3).
3
fraud on the court under Rule 60(d)(3), its motion is untimely.
4
See id. R. 60(b), (c)(1), (d)(3).
5
Fed. R. Civ. P.
The parties agree that, unless Sierra Pacific can show
As agreed at the conference, before evaluating the
6
merits of Sierra Pacific’s accusations, the court will resolve
7
the threshold issue of whether the alleged conduct giving rise to
8
Sierra Pacific’s Rule 60(d)(3) motion constitutes “fraud on the
9
court.”
10
11
The court will therefore require the parties to submit
briefs and hear oral argument limited to this threshold issue.
Focused briefing shall be submitted limited to: (1)
12
identifying the test for “fraud on the court” under Rule 60(d)(3)
13
and what Sierra Pacific must prove to seek relief under that
14
subsection; (2) addressing whether, assuming the truth of Sierra
15
Pacific’s allegations, each alleged act of misconduct separately
16
or collectively constitutes “fraud on the court” within the
17
meaning of Rule 60(d)(3); and (3) explaining how and when Sierra
18
Pacific discovered the alleged misconduct, specifically
19
identifying whether Sierra Pacific learned of each alleged act
20
before or after the settlement and dismissal of the case.
21
Sierra Pacific shall file its brief limited to the
22
aforementioned issues no later than January 15, 2015.
The
23
government shall file an opposition limited to these issues no
24
later than February 17, 2015.
25
reply similarly limited to the identified issues no later than
26
March 9, 2015.
27
will be heard at 2:00 p.m. on April 6, 2015.
28
request to reopen discovery is denied without prejudice.
Sierra Pacific shall then file a
Oral argument limited to that threshold issue
2
Sierra Pacific’s
1
The December 15, 2014 hearing on the government’s
2
motion to disqualify counsel for defendants is vacated.
3
motion and Sierra Pacific’s motion to temporarily stay its
4
obligations under the settlement agreement, the court will not
5
set hearing dates or require briefing until after it resolves the
6
threshold issue of whether Sierra Pacific can seek relief under
7
Rule 60(d)(3).
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
November 24, 2014
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
For that
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?