Reddy v. Morrissey
Filing
74
ORDER - The Court ADOPTS Judge You's Findings and Recommendation (ECF 70 ). The Court DENIES Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 44 ). The Court also DENIES Defendant's Motion to Strike and Motion for Sanctions (ECF 63 ). The Court, however, gives Defendant leave to see an unredacted copy of the presentence report, under an appropriate protective order, as discussed in this Order. Signed on 4/1/2021 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
RAJASHAKHER P. REDDY,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 3:18-cv-938-YY
ORDER
v.
MANJU MORRISEY,
Defendant.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued Findings and Recommendation
in this case on November 30, 2021. Judge You previously had issued Findings and
Recommendation on April 14, 2020, recommending that this Court deny Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment. Defendant filed objections and Plaintiff filed a response along with new
evidence. Judge You withdrew her April Findings and Recommendation to consider the new
evidence and argument. Defendant then filed a Motion to Strike and Motion for Sanctions. Upon
reconsideration, Judge You’s current Findings and Recommendation remains the same: that this
Court deny Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Judge You concluded that Plaintiff
should not be barred by the doctrines of judicial estoppel and unclean hands. Judge You also
recommends that the Court deny Defendant’s Motion to Strike and Motion for Sanctions.
PAGE 1 –ORDER
Defendant timely filed an objection (ECF 72), to which Plaintiff responded. ECF 73. Defendant
objects to the portion of Judge You’s recommendation finding that Plaintiff’s current position is
not barred by the doctrines of judicial estoppel or unclean hands. Defendant further objects to
Judge You’s denial of Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions. Defendant does not object to Judge
You’s denial of the Motion to Strike. Plaintiff responds and adds a purported objection to Judge
You’s analysis of the elements of judicial estoppel.1
Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). If a party files objections to a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations,
“the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
On the question of whether the Court should grant summary judgment on the basis of
judicial estoppel and unclean hands, Judge You found that determining whether the position
Plaintiff took in a separate, prior proceeding was the result of inadvertence or mistake required a
credibility determination that is reserved for the jury and should not be made on summary
judgment. The Court has reviewed Judge You’s findings and recommendation de novo and
adopts her analysis relating to judicial estoppel and unclean hands. Regarding Defendant’s
1
Plaintiff did not file an objection to the Findings & Recommendation. Instead, he
purports to raise an objection in his response to Defendant’s objection. Plaintiff’s objections,
therefore, are untimely and are not properly before the Court. See United States v. One Parcel of
Real Prop., with Buildings, Appurtenances, Improvements, & Contents, Known as: 2121 E. 30th
St., Tulsa, Oklahoma, 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996) (“[A] party's objections to the
magistrate judge's report and recommendation must be both timely and specific to preserve an
issue for de novo review by the district court or for appellate review.”); Advisory Committee
Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (“When no timely objection is filed, the Court need only satisfy itself
that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”
(citing Campbell v. United States Dist. Ct., 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)). Thus, the Court
does not consider the objection raised by Plaintiff.
PAGE 2 –ORDER
motion for sanctions to which Defendant has objected, the Court has reviewed the issue de novo.
The Court adopts this portion of the Findings and Recommendation.
For those portions of a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations to which neither
party has objected, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Act], intended to
require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”); United
States. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that the court
must review de novo magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations if objection is made, “but
not otherwise”). Although in the absence of objections no review is required, the Act “does not
preclude further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other
standard.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b) recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the Court review the magistrate
judge’s recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record.” For those portions of the
Findings and Recommendation to which neither party objected, the Court follows the
recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Judge You’s Findings and
Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent.
Accordingly, the Court adopts those portions of the Findings and Recommendation.
Finally, the Court recognizes with greater clarity that credibility may play an important,
even a key, role at trial. Accordingly, Defendant has leave to request from Plaintiff an unredacted
copy of the presentence report, under an appropriate protective order. If Plaintiff continues to
resist, Defendant has leave to seek reconsideration from the Court regarding whether an
unredacted presentence report must be provided (under an appropriate protective order). At that
time, both sides will be given a further opportunity to be heard.
PAGE 3 –ORDER
The Court ADOPTS Judge You’s Findings and Recommendation (ECF 70). The Court
DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 44). The Court also DENIES
Defendant’s Motion to Strike and Motion for Sanctions (ECF 63). The Court, however, gives
Defendant leave to see an unredacted copy of the presentence report, under an appropriate
protective order, as discussed in this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 1st day of April, 2021.
/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge
PAGE 4 –ORDER
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?