Xu, Ye v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System

Filing 60

ORDER denying plaintiff Ye Xu's 58 motion for a further extension of time to file a reply brief in support of her motion to alter or amend the judgment. Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment, Dkt. 51 , is DENIED.Plain tiff's motion for an extension of time to file her notice of appeal, Dkt. 58 , is GRANTED. Plaintiff may have 60 days from the entry of this order to file her notice of appeal. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 7/25/2018. (jef),(ps)

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

YE XU,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
SYSTEM,

16-cv-510-jdp

Defendant.
In this case, pro se plaintiff Ye Xu, a librarian at the University of Wisconsin-Madison,
alleged that administrators at the University of Wisconsin System discriminated against her
on the basis of her race and national origin by creating a classification of Taiwanese library
materials separate from Chinese materials, over her objections. Xu contended that workplace
conflict following the dispute was a manifestation of discrimination against her because she
was born in mainland China. I granted summary judgment to defendant in a January 22, 2018
order. Dkt. 49.
Xu has filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59, Dkt. 51, but the briefing is not yet complete. After receiving two extensions, Xu
filed a motion to extend her deadline to file a reply brief for up to a year while she receives
intensive medical treatment. See Dkt. 58. I sympathize with what Xu is going through and wish
her a speedy recovery. In certain circumstances, medical treatment like the type Xu needs might
be reason to stay a case for a long period of time. But long stays are the exception, not the rule,
and Xu’s proposed extension is not warranted here. There is nothing of substance necessitating
a reply: defendant filed a very short response in which it say that it stands on its summary

judgment briefing. Also, I understand Xu’s position from her brief-in-chief, and I conclude that
it is meritless, so there is no reason to draw out the briefing any further.
A motion under Rule 59 succeeds only where the moving party establishes “(1) that the
court committed a manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered evidence precluded
entry of judgment.” Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Beyrer, 722 F.3d 939, 954 (7th Cir. 2013) (internal
quotation omitted). Xu’s Rule 59 motion does not make either of these showings. She largely
reiterates evidence she submitted at summary judgment, and she contends that I “missed the
core issue Xu brought to the Court that is about equal treatment as a U.S. citizen rather than
an alien.” Dkt. 51, at 1. I am not persuaded that I misunderstood the nature of her
discrimination claims when I described them as claims for discrimination and hostile work
environment based on her race and national origin. Xu, a naturalized citizen, herself
summarizes her claims by stating that she “asks that her employer respect her status as an
American citizen rather than using her national origin as a basis for distrust and mistreatment
in the employment context.” Id. at 3.
Ultimately, nothing in her Rule 59 motion convinces me that I erred in concluding that
her discrimination claims were meritless. She continues to contend that she was subjected to
humiliating work conditions by having her name associated with the Taiwanese database, and
that students believes that she is biased against China because of it. But as I explained in the
summary judgment opinion, this court simply does not wade into bona fide business decisions
like the library-classification decisions at issue here. And given her job as a university librarian,
it is not surprising that she would have to deal with complaints from students. Xu also fails to
show that I was incorrect on concluding that the reprimands she received were pretexts for

2

defendant’s discrimination as opposed to legitimate disciplinary matters. Because Xu fails to
meet her burden under Rule 59, I will deny her motion.
Given Xu’s request for a year-long extension of her reply briefing deadline, I will
construe that motion to include a request to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal.
However, district courts may grant only short extensions of that deadline—in this case, a 30day extension of her 30-day period to file the notice of appeal. I will grant that request, giving
her 60 days from the entry of this order to file her notice of appeal. Any further requests
regarding Xu’s potential appeal will have to be addressed to the court of appeals.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Ye Xu’s motion for a further extension of time to file a reply brief in support
of her motion to alter or amend the judgment, Dkt. 58, is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the judgment, Dkt. 51, is DENIED.
3. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file her notice of appeal, Dkt. 58, is
GRANTED. Plaintiff may have 60 days from the entry of this order to file her notice
of appeal.
Entered July 25, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

3