Civil Rights: Jobs | District Of Columbia
PROCEDURES AND SCHEDULING ORDER: Amended Pleadings due by 7/23/2021. Discovery due by 1/21/2022. Initial Disclosure due by 7/23/2021. Joinder of Parties due by 7/23/2021. Plaintiff Rule 26(a)(1) due by 7/23/2021. Defendant Rule 26(a)(1) due by 7/23/2021. Plaintiff Rule 26(a)(2) due by 9/24/2021. Defendant Rule 26(a)(2) due by 11/19/2021. Post-Discovery Status Conference set for 2/4/2022 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 6 before Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey on 6/24/21. (MFB)
Civil Rights: Jobs | District Of Columbia
Order on Motion to Alter Judgment
MINUTE ORDER: Plaintiff Jimenez's 48 Motion seeks reconsideration of the Court's 45 Order and 46 Memorandum Opinion. In its 46 Opinion, the Court granted the government's motion for partial summary judgment, thereby dismissing all of Jimenez's non-selection claims and leaving only one claim (regarding access to the Homeland Secure Data Network, or "HSDN") pending. Several weeks later, Jimenez filed the present motion to alter the judgment. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies the motion.
Jimenez's motion argues that reconsideration is warranted because his failure to file a Rule 56(d) request for discovery was the result of his counsel's misinterpretation of the initial scheduling conference. To that end, Jimenez submits a declaration prepared by his counsel, in which she avers that the following was her understanding of the conference: "that it would be inefficient to serve discovery requests on the HSDN claims and conduct discovery again on the non-selection claim where there could be a significant time in between the completion of the HSDN discovery and the initiation of the non-selection discovery, which would then in turn stay the dispositive motions filed on the HSDN matter and it could be at a date much later than the first discovery." Decl. of Rani Rolston &para 17, ECF No. 48-2. Counsel notes that she "did not articulate these sentiments in full during the conference," but reasons that she nonetheless "remember[s] these concerns and that [she] identified [her] goal was to be efficient" Id. at &para 17 n.1.
Jimenez does not explain how these "recollections" caused counsel to omit a Rule 56(d) affidavit when opposing summary judgment. Nor does counsel cite to any portion of the record that could support or clarify her understanding of the conference. Regardless, the transcript of that conference reveals that Jimenez's discovery obligations were made abundantly clear. In fact, the Court specifically pointed plaintiff's counsel to "Rule 56(d)" and explained that "if there are areas of discovery that you think you need, you have to specify those with some particularity[.]" Tr. 4:13-15, ECF No. 52-1 (emphasis added). Jimenez's counsel then responded, "Understood, your honor." Id. at 4:16. Months later, Jimenez's obligation to file a Rule 56(d) affidavit was highlighted by the government's reply brief, which noted that "[t]he absence of any request made under Rule 56(d) is particularly glaring in light of the fact that...the Court instructed Plaintiff's counsel that...Plaintiff would need to comply with Rule 56(d) to assert a need for discovery." Reply at 2-3, ECF No. 43.
In any event, Jimenez's reconsideration motion overlooks the fact that the Court also granted the government's motion on the merits. Specifically, after concluding that the government was entitled to summary judgment in light of Jimenez's failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and LCvR 7(h), the Court nonetheless "proceed[ed] to analyze the merits of Jimenez's non-selection claims[.]" Memo. Op. at 12-13, ECF No. 46. The Court then granted the government's motion on the merits of each claim, reasoning that Jimenez failed to create a dispute of fact as to any non-discriminatory reason proffered by the government for his non-selection. Jimenez does not mention this aspect of the Court's decision, let alone demonstrate that its reconsideration is warranted under Rule 59(e). Accordingly, Jimenez's 48 Motion to Alter Judgment is DENIED.
Signed by Judge Christopher R. Cooper on 6/23/2021. (lccrc1)
Civil Rights: Jobs | Maryland
LETTER/ORDER CONFIRMING the matters discussed during the telephone conference. An evidentiary hearing is scheduled on September 20 and 21, 2012. At the conclusion of discovery, counsel are directed toexchange information concerning witnesses and exhibits to bepresented at the hearing and to advise the court by September 3 ifthere are objections to the proposed evidence. Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 6/23/2021. Associated Cases: 1:20-cv-03516-DKC, 1:20-cv-03533-DKC(Chasanow, Deborah)
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS