Burton, Sabina v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System et al

Filing 121

ORDER that plaintiff Sabina Burton's motion for relief from judgment and spoliation sanctions, Dkt. 119 , is DENIED. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 3/11/2020. (rks),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

SABINA BURTON,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
WISCONSIN SYSTEM, THOMAS CAYWOOD,
ELIZABETH THROOP, and MICHAEL DALECKI,

14-cv-274-jdp

Defendants.
Plaintiff Sabina Burton has filed yet another motion seeking to reopen this long-closed
case. Dkt. 119. Again, she contends that defendants withheld documents in discovery, which
is an issue she has raised before. Dkt. 113. In my last order, I told her that I would not consider
any additional motions on this issue. Dkt. 118.
This time, she invokes the “fraud on the court” doctrine, under which a court may
exercise its inherent authority to set aside a judgment obtained by fraud even after the statutory
period for seeking relief from a final judgment has expired. See Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford
Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 244 (1944), overruled on other grounds by Standard Oil Co. of Cal. v.
United States, 429 U.S. 17 (1976); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3). Despite the invocation of a new
legal doctrine, she’s raising the same issue yet again, and I will deny her motion.
The new doctrine wouldn’t help anyway. Other than in patent cases, the “fraud on the
court” doctrine is “interpreted narrowly” to include only “corruption of the judicial process
itself.” Matter of Met-L-Wood Corp., 861 F.2d 1012, 1018 (7th Cir. 1998). Discovery violations
do “not constitute the type of extraordinary circumstances which would justify relief . . . on

the basis of fraud on the court.” Marquip, Inc. v. Fosber Am., Inc., 30 F. Supp. 2d 1142, 1146
(W.D. Wis. 1998), aff’d, 198 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Sabina Burton’s motion for relief from judgment and
spoliation sanctions, Dkt. 119, is DENIED.
Entered March 11, 2020.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

2