New Mexico Oncology and Hematology Consultants, Ltd. v. Presbyterian Healthcare Services et al
Filing
814
ORDER ADOPTING 745 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by District Judge Martha Vazquez; OVERRULING 756 Objections, filed by New Mexico Oncology and Hematology Consultants, Ltd.; DENYING 791 Reply to Response to Motion, filed by New Mexico Oncology and Hematology Consultants, Ltd.. (gr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
NEW MEXICO ONCOLOGY AND HEMATOLOGY
CONSULTANTS, LTD.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civ. No. 12‐526 MV/GBW
PRESBYTERIAN HEALTHCARE SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED
DISPOSITION
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections (doc. 756) to the
Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (“PFRD”) (doc.
745) on Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (doc. 673) and accompanying briefing (docs. 770,
791, 807). Being fully advised, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections, denies
Plaintiff’s request to consider newly discovered evidence, and adopts the PFRD.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (doc. 673) was addressed by the Magistrate Judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Under that provision, the Court’s standard of
review of a magistrate judge’s PFRD is de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When
resolving objections to a magistrate judge’s PFRD, “[t]he district judge must determine
de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected
to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition;
receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
Here, the Court finds that all of Plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
PFRD (doc. 756) merely attempt to relitigate factual issues already thoroughly presented
to and considered by the Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge, in making his
determination, presided over myriad discovery disputes, reviewed extensive briefing
on Plaintiff’s motion, and presided over a full‐day evidentiary hearing, as well as a
second hearing to allow oral argument on the evidence presented, before finding that
Defendants’ actions, though negligent, do not support the severe sanctions requested by
Plaintiff. Doc. 745. Rather, the Magistrate Judge found that the circumstances merit a
lesser sanction. Specifically, he found that Defendants must pay Plaintiff 75% of the
costs associated with its Motion for Sanctions. Id. at 34. Having conducted a de novo
review of the briefing and the testimony at both hearings (docs. 735, 747), the Court
agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Plaintiff failed to show by a
preponderance of the evidence that Defendants acted with intent to deprive Plaintiff of
the information at issue, as required to order either a default judgment or an adverse
jury instruction as a sanction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(2). Accordingly, the Court hereby
adopts the PFRD as its own.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court notes that in Plaintiff’s Reply, Plaintiff asks
2
the Court to also consider “newly discovered” evidence in rendering its decision,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2). Doc. 791. However, the Court will not and has not
considered this additional evidence in rendering its decision. Rather, it finds that such
evidence is not “newly discovered.” See ClearOne Comm’ns, Inc. v. Bowers, 643 F.3d 735,
757‐58 (10th Cir. 2011) (explaining that for evidence to be “new,” it must not have been
available to the movant prior to the hearing). Plaintiff admits that Defendants released
the pertinent evidence to Plaintiff as early as June 22, 2017, and that Plaintiff reviewed
the material between July 9 and July 24, 2017, well before the hearing in this matter on
August 8, 2017. Doc. 791, Ex. 1. Although Plaintiff contends that this information was
not fairly accessible to it by the time of the hearing, due to the complex nature of
review, Plaintiff did not move the Court to delay the briefing or to reschedule the
evidentiary hearing. Therefore, the Court finds that these documents do not constitute
newly discovered material vindicating supplemental review.
Additionally, even if the Court were to consider Plaintiff’s supplemental
evidence, such consideration would not produce a different result. Rather, the Court
would not waver in its determination that the Defendants did not commit intentional
spoliation. That determination forecloses the severe sanctions sought by Plaintiff. The
Court recognizes that Defendants committed many errors throughout the discovery
process. However, the Court does not agree with Plaintiff’s contention that Defendants’
failure to produce these documents to Plaintiff prior to June 22, 2017 proves that
3
Defendants engaged in willful or bad faith actions warranting the imposition of the
severe sanctions requested by Plaintiff. Instead, the Court affirms the Magistrate
Judge’s finding that Defendants’ negligence does not meet the level of intentionality
necessary to justify sanctions in the form of default judgment or an adverse jury
instruction.
Therefore it is ORDERED, that:
(1) Plaintiff’s objections (doc. 756) are OVERRULED;
(2) Plaintiff’s request for consideration of newly discovered evidence (doc. 791) is
DENIED; and
(3) The Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition
(doc. 745) is ADOPTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MARTHA VÁZQUEZ
United States District Judge
4
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?