Howery v. The Boeing Company

Filing 209

ORDER denying 205 Motion to Amended or Vacate Order by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez.(SSM)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

CRYSTAL HOWERY,
Plaintiff,

9
10

Case No. C14-01555RSM
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER
OF MAY 11, 2016

v.
THE BOEING COMPANY,
Defendant.

11
12
13
14

This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Order of
May 11, 2016. Dkt. #205. Plaintiff seeks an Order vacating this Court’s prior Minute Order

15

striking a prior Motion for Protective Order. See Dkts. #202 and #205. Specifically, Plaintiff

16

argues that the Court misinterpreted her Motion for Protective Order as one seeking protection

17

during discovery, which is no longer ongoing. Instead, Plaintiff asserts that she was actually

18

seeking an Order requiring Defendant to return any medical records it had obtained before she

19

appealed the Court’s dismissal of her case. Dkt. #208. Defendant opposes the motion,

20
21

arguing that Plaintiff’s motion is moot and that this Court has no jurisdiction because Plaintiff
has an appeal pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Dkt. #207. For the reasons set

22
forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for relief.
23
24
25

A. Jurisdiction
As an initial matter, the Court addresses the effect of Plaintiff’s pending appeal on

26
ORDER - 1

1

the instant motion. Once a notice of appeal is filed, this Court loses jurisdiction over the

2

action. See Williams v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 567, 586 (9th Cir. 2004); Carriger v. Lewis,

3

971 F.2d 329, 332 (9th Cir. 1992) (en banc). However, if a party files a timely motion to

4
5

alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59 or Rule 60, the time to file an appeal runs from
the entry of the order disposing of that motion. Miller v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 300 F.3d 1061,

6
1063 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(v)). The instant
7
8
9

motion was timely filed. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction to consider the motion.
B. Rule 59(e)

10

A motion for relief from judgment under Rule 59(e) should be granted when the

11

Court: “(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence; (2) committed clear error or the

12

initial decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) if there is an intervening change in the

13

controlling law.” In re Syncor ERISA Litigation, 516 F.3d 1095, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008)

14
15

(citation omitted). In the instant case, Plaintiff neither asserts newly discovered evidence
nor that there has been an intervening change in the law. At best, Plaintiff argues that the

16
Court committed clear error in striking her prior Motion for Protective Order. The Court is
17
18
19

not persuaded.
Plaintiff’s prior motion was drafted in a way such that it was not entirely clear to the

20

Court what relief she was seeking. Indeed, Plaintiff wrote: “The Plaintiff, Crystal Howery

21

also requests that the defendant’s discovery be limited to the period of time during which

22

she was employed by the defendant.” Dkt. #200. Thus, the Court correctly explained that

23

the Court had dismissed her case, no discovery was ongoing, and the Court lacked

24
25

jurisdiction over the matter due to her appeal.” Dkt. #202.
While Plaintiff now asserts that she was simply seeking an Order from this Court

26
ORDER - 2

1

requiring Plaintiff to return any of her medical records that they obtained during discovery

2

prior to her appeal, Plaintiff fails to explain to the Court any efforts she has made to discuss

3

such return with Defendant, and how those efforts have failed. The return of documents

4
5

obtained during discovery in a litigation is a matter to be discussed between the parties prior
to seeking the Court’s intervention. It is not even clear to this Court that Defendant has

6
obtained such documents given the fact that Plaintiff had previously failed to engage in
7
8
9

discovery and that one of the precursors to this lawsuit was her refusal to sign a medical
release allowing Defendant to obtain her medical records.

Unless or until Plaintiff

10

communicates with Defendant, identifies which medical records they have in their

11

possession, and presents to the Court evidence of any refusal by Defendant to return or

12

destroy such records, the Court will not intervene.

13
14
15

For these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the
Court’s striking of her prior Motion for Protective Order was in error. Accordingly, the
Court denies Plaintiff’s motion under Rule 59(e).

16
C. Rule 60(b)
17
18
19
20

The Court next turns to Plaintiff’s motion under Rule 60(b). Rule 60(b) provides
that a court may relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for any of the
following six reasons:

21

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

22

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not
have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);

23
24
25

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;

26
ORDER - 3

or

extrinsic),

1
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on
an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it
prospectively is no longer equitable; or

2
3

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

4
5

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). It appears that Plaintiff brings her motion under 60(b)(1) and/or

6

60(b)(6).

7

Rule 60(b)(1) allows this Court to relieve a party from an Order based on “mistake,

8

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). Such mistakes

9
10

include the Court’s substantive errors of law or fact. Fid. Fed. Bank, FSB v. Durga Ma
Corp., 387 F.3d 1021, 1024 (9th Cir. 2004). In order to obtain relief under Rule 60(b)(1),

11
the movant “must show that the district court committed a specific error.” Straw v. Bowen,
12
13
14

866 F.2d 1167, 1172 (9th Cir. 1989). For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff has not done
so.

15

Rule 60(b)(6) is a “catchall provision” that applies only when the reason for granting

16

relief is not covered by any of the other reasons set forth in Rule 60. United States v.

17

Washington, 394 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2005), overruled on other grounds by United

18

States v. Washington, 593 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 2010). “It has been used sparingly as an

19
20

equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary
circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous

21
judgment.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, to reopen a case under Rule
22
23
24
25

60(b)(6), a party must establish “both injury and circumstances beyond his control that
prevented him from proceeding . . . in a proper fashion.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted).

26
ORDER - 4

Based on the same reasons above, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to

1

demonstrate a basis to amend or alter the judgment in this matter under Rule 60(b)(6).

2

Accordingly, her motion is denied in its entirety.

3
4
5

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion for relief, the response thereto, and the reply in
support thereof, along with the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS
that Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief (Dkt. #205) is DENIED.

6
DATED this 6th day of July, 2016.
7

A

8
9

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER - 5