HCC Life Insurance Company v. Conroy et al
Filing
81
ORDER denying 67 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 1/23/2018. (anh)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
8
9
10
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
HCC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an
Indiana corporation,
Plaintiff,
11
12
13
v.
KEVIN CONROY; LINDA CONROY,
ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
[Doc. No. 67]
Defendants.
14
15
Case No.: 3:15-cv-02897-BEN-BLM
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS
16
17
Now before the Court is Plaintiff HCC Life Insurance Company's ("HCC Life")
18
Application for Reconsideration. HCC Life seeks reconsideration of the March 22, 2017
19
Order denying Summary Judgment. For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES the
20
Application for Reconsideration.
21
BACKGROUND and PROCEDURAL HISTORY
22
On December 23, 2015, HCC Life, brought this diversity lawsuit against the
23
Conroys. The Conroys answered the Complaint and filed their own counterclaims. On
24
August 26, 2016, HCC Life filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which was denied,
25
leading to the filing of the instant Application for Reconsideration based on "newly-
26
discovered evidence."
27
Ill
28
Ill
3: 15-cv-02897-BEN-BLM
1
LEGAL STANDARD
2
The decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is left to the sound
3
discretion of the trial court. See Sch. Dist. No. JJ, Multnomah Cnty. v. AC and S, Inc., 5
4
F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Such motions are disfavored and absent exceptional
5
circumstances, usually are only appropriate "if the district court (1) is presented with
6
newly discovered evidence; (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was
7
manifestly unjust; or (3) ifthere is an intervening change in controlling law." (Id.)
8
9
In their motion, HCC Life does not maintain that there has been an intervening
change in controlling law. Nor do they argue that the Court committed clear error in its
10
resolution of the summary judgment motion based on the evidence presented at that time.
11
Rather, HCC Life contends reconsideration is appropriate on account of"newly
12
discovered evidence." (Doc. No. 67 at 2.) Therefore, to prevail, HCC Life must
13
establish first that the proffered testimony is indeed "newly discovered evidence" under
14
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2); second, HCC Life exercised due diligence to
15
obtain the evidence; and third, the testimony is of such a magnitude that it would have
16
changed the Court's ruling on the summary judgment motion. See Coastal Transfer Co.
17
v. Toyota Motor Sales, Inc., 833 F.2d 208, 211 (9th Cir. 1987).
DISCUSSION
18
19
1.
Newly Discovered Evidence
20
Under the Federal Rules, evidence is not "newly discovered" if it was in the
21
moving party's possession before judgment was rendered. Feature Realty, Inc. v. City of
22
Spokane, 331F.3d1082, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Coastal Transfer Co., 833 F.2d at
23
212) (" ... [I]f [evidence] was in the possession of the party before the judgment was
24
rendered it is not newly discovered and does not entitle the party to relief."). HCC Life
25
argues the belatedly produced documents and deposition testimony constitute "newly
26
discovered evidence" because it was not received until after the summary judgment
27
motion was filed and fully briefed. (Doc. No. 67 at 6.)
28
2
3: l 5-cv-02897-BEN-BLM
1
The fact that HCC Lifes' summary judgment motion was fully briefed before it
2
conducted the depositions does not render the resulting testimony "newly discovered" for
3
purposes of Rule 60(b)(2). It is the litigants' responsibility to introduce evidence for the
4
court's consideration of summary judgment, whether in original or supplemental filings.
5
See, e.g., Rossi v. Troy State Univ. 330 F. Supp.2d 1240, 1249-50 (M.D. Ala. 2002)
6
(denying Rule 60(b )(2) motion because movant never requested leave to supplement its
7
response to the summary judgment motion with new evidence while the motion was
8
under consideration). Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has held that a party possessing
9
evidence for as little as eight days prior to a court's summary judgment ruling could not
10
11
invoke Rule 60(b)(2). (Id. at 1093.)
Here, HCC Life was in possession of the belatedly produced documents for over a
12
month before the Court issued its ruling on March 22, 2017. Notably, by Wednesday,
13
March 15, 2017, all of the plaintiffs scheduled depositions had been completed, leaving
14
ample time to bring the "newly discovered evidence" to the Court's attention. (Doc. No.
15
73.) Unfortunately, the docket does not reflect any effort to place the evidence before the
16
Court. Furthermore, HCC Life's explanation for not supplementing its response or
17
requesting an extension to submit additional evidence ("summary judgment was filed and
18
briefing closed ... ") lacks support to justify the Court granting its request. See Fed. R.
19
Civ. P. 56(t); (Doc. No. 67 at 6.)
20
Therefore, the proffered documents and deposition testimony cannot be accepted
21
as "newly discovered evidence," and HCC Life's request for relief pursuant to Rule
22
60(b)(2) must be DENIED.
23
2.
Due Diligence
24
The fact that the documents and deposition testimony is not "newly discovered
25
evidence" under the Federal Rules is enough to end the inquiry. However, this
26
requirement is closely related to the second prong of due diligence, see Gonzalez-Pina v.
27
Rodriguez, 407 F.3d 425, 433 (1st Cir. 2005). In the case at hand, HCC Life's lack of
28
3
3: l 5-cv-02897-BEN-BLM
1
due diligence in obtaining the deposition testimony poses an additional bar to the relief
2
sought.
3
The Ninth Circuit spoke to the due diligence requirement in Coastal Transfer Co.
4
In that case, the Ninth Circuit rebuked a Rule 60(b )(2) movant for its failure to exercise
5
due diligence in discovering the inaccuracy of its own expert's testimony because other
6
evidence the movant possessed prior to the district court's ruling could have revealed the
7
inaccuracy. Coastal Transfer Co. 833 F.2d at 212. In other words, due diligence
8
assumes at least some level of deductive reasoning in an active effort to discover
9
evidence based on the knowledge and information already possessed by the litigants.
10
Here, HCC Life's assertion that it exercised due diligence in obtaining the
11
deposition testimony is not supported by the record and evidence before the Court. First,
12
HCC Life's three requests to amend the scheduling order to extend the discovery
13
deadline without once mentioning any discovery issues, late production or "newly
14
discovered evidence" does not reflect due diligence. (Doc. Nos. 56, 59 and 63.)
15
Second, HCC Life certainly could have deposed at a minimum Mr. and Mrs.
16
Conroy well before their reply to Conroy's Response in Opposition to the summary
17
judgment motion was due on November 21, 2016. See e.g., Martinez v. Wawona Frozen
18
Foods, 247 F. Appx. 883, 885 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that plaintiffs efforts to depose
19
certain witnesses "did not constitute new evidence because the opportunity to depose the
20
[witnesses] had long been present and [plaintiff] was given ample time to pursue the
21
necessary discovery"). Instead of demonstrating reasonable diligence, the circumstances
22
indicate knowing delay - the Conroys depositions, as well as those for Steven Green,
23
M.D., Murray Zucker, M.D., Paul C. Murphy, M.D., and Moshe Lewis, M.D., were all
24
taken over eight months after HCC Life filed its Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
25
No. 30); over four months after the Conroy's filed their Response to the Motion for
26
Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 45); and twelve days before the court denied the Motion
27
for Summary Judgment. (Doc. No. 65.)
28
4
3: 15-cv-02897-BEN-BLM
,~
'
'
~
>
1
2
Third, as discussed above, HCC Life's explanation for not supplementing its
response or requesting an extension to submit additional evidence was "summary
3 judgment was filed and briefing closed ... ". (Doc. No. 67.) While this may be true, it
4
does not excuse their obligation under Rule 56 to supplement the motion for summary
5 judgment with specific facts demonstrating a genuine issue of material fact (or to seek a
6
7
continuance under Rule 56(d)).
Therefore, HCC Life has not demonstrated due diligence and their request for
8
relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(2) must be DENIED. Moreover, because HCC Life falls
9
short of satisfying the first two prongs of the Rule 60(b)(2) analysis, it is unnecessary for
10
the Court to address the third prong requiring a reexamination of the summary judgment
11
motion with the aid of the belatedly offered evidence.
12
CONCLUSION & ORDER
13
Because HCC Life fails to meet the burden required under the first and second
14
prongs of Rule 60(b )(2), the Court finds that HCC Life cannot satisfy the high hurdle
15
necessary to warrant the extraordinary remedy of reconsideration. Accordingly, HCC
16
Life's Application for Reconsideration is DENIED.
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
20
Dated:
January~' 2018
/lh'l1'.7"'1r T. Benitez
United States District Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
3: 15-cv-02897-BEN-BLM
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?