Mata v. Owens & Minor et al

Filing 134

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT; SETTING ASIDE ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND VACATING JUDGMENT ENTERED THEREON; SETTING ASIDE CLERK'S TAXATION OF COSTS; SUSTAINING DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on June 1, 2005. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF)

Mata v. Owens & Minor et al

Doc. 134

Case 3:04-cv-00322-MMC

Document 134

Filed 06/01/2005

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. OWENS & MINOR, et al., Defendant / FELIPE MATA, Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA No. C 04-0322 MMC ARB ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT; SETTING ASIDE ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND VACATING JUDGMENT ENTERED THEREON; SETTING ASIDE CLERK'S TAXATION OF COSTS; SUSTAINING DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Before the Court are plaintiff's motions for relief from judgment, pursuant to Rules 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and to alter or amend judgment, pursuant to Rule 59(e). The matters came on regularly for hearing May 27, 2005. John E. Skeath appeared on behalf of plaintiff. Steven Spaulding and Leopoldo J. Chanco of Jedeikin, Spaulding, Meadows & Schneider appeared on behalf of defendant. Having considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motions, the arguments of counsel, and for the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, the Court rules as follows: 1. Plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment is hereby GRANTED, to the extent plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1), and DENIED, to the extent plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6). 2. Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend judgment is hereby DENIED. 3. The Court's order of April 5, 2005 granting defendant's motion for summary

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:04-cv-00322-MMC

Document 134

Filed 06/01/2005

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

judgment is hereby SET ASIDE, and the judgment entered April 7, 2005 thereon is hereby VACATED. 4. The Clerk's notice of taxation of costs, filed May 4, 2005, is hereby SET ASIDE. 5. Defendant's objection to the Order Denying Motions to Compel and Motion for Sanctions, and Granting Motion for Protective Order, filed February 22, 2005, is hereby SUSTAINED, to the extent defendant objects to the denial of its motions to compel and the granting of plaintiff's motion for a protective order.1 Specifically, the non-expert discovery cut-off is extended to September 16, 2005, for the limited purpose of allowing defendant to take discovery on the issues of plaintiff's immigration status and driving conduct, and to depose plaintiff's wife, who is not entitled to rely on the spousal privilege.2 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2005

/s/ Maxine M. Chesney MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

By order filed April 5, 2005, the Court denied the objection, to the extent defendant objected to the denial of its motion for sanctions. As set forth at the hearing on the motions, the non-expert cut-off is also extended for the purpose of reserving subpoenas issued before the above-referenced order granting summary judgment. 2
2

1