Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Taylor v. Rice

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division

February 21, 2019

JAMES TAYLOR, Plaintiff,
v.
JON A. RICE, et al., Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          JOHN E. MARTIN MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Rule 60 Motion for Relief From, to Reconsider and to Set Aside Order of August 20, 2018 [DE 42], filed August 21, 2018. Defendants request that the Court reconsider and grant relief from its order granting Plaintiff's request for discovery sanctions. On September 4, 2018, Plaintiff filed a response, and Defendants filed a reply on September 10, 2018.

         I. Background

         On July 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion requesting that the Court bar the use of a recorded statement of Plaintiff taken by an investigator because it was not timely disclosed to Plaintiff as required. Plaintiff represented that it served interrogatories and requests to produce on Defendants Rice and Beer Transportation on November 9, 2017, but had not received any responses before Plaintiff's deposition on December 14, 2017. Plaintiff did not receive the responses until January 25, 2018, and those responses indicated that Defendants possessed no statements of the Plaintiff besides those in the police report and at his deposition, and did not disclose either the name of the investigator or the existence of a recorded statement of Plaintiff taken by the investigator. Defendants Rice and Beer Transportation also failed to identify the investigator as someone likely to have discoverable information or mention the statement by Plaintiff in their Rule 26 Disclosures made on February 15, 2018. The parties attended mediation on June 27, 2018, where Defendants Rice and Beer Transportation first revealed that they had a recording and transcript of an interview of Plaintiff conducted by the investigator a few days after the accident underlying this case. Defendants did not respond to the Motion for Sanctions.

         On August 20, 2018, the Court entered an order granting the Motion and, on a finding that the information was not timely disclosed as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, prohibiting Defendants Rice and Beer Transportation from using the statement and recording of Plaintiff taken by the investigator on or about July 21, 2015, or calling the investigator as a witness. Moving Defendants now request that the Court reconsider that Order and set aside the prohibition.

         II. Standard of Review

          Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 provides for relief from an order for:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(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);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(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
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion for “[r]econsideration is not an appropriate forum for rehashing previously rejected arguments or arguing matters that could have been heard during the pendency of the previous motion.” Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.