Chacko v. AT&T Umbrella Benefit Plan No. 3 ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RUBY CHACKO, No. 2:19-cv-01837-JAM-DB 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S RULE 60(b) MOTION FOR RELIEF 12 AT&T UMBRELLA BENEFIT PLAN NO. 3, 13 Defendant. 14 15 I. BACKGROUND 16 Before the Court is Ruby Chacko’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for 17 relief from the Court’s April 27, 2020 Order at ECF No. 37 18 (“Prior Order”) granting in part and denying in part her motion 19 for reconsideration. 1 See Pl.’s Mot. for Relief (“Mot.”), ECF 20 No. 87. As relevant here, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request 21 to reconsider the Magistrate Judge’s denial of discovery into the 22 relationship between AT&T Umbrella Benefit Plan No. 3 23 (“Defendant”) and its third-party administrator, Sedgwick. Prior 24 Order at 3-4. The Court explained that it did not find “the 25 Magistrate Judge’s ruling denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel as 26 27 1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 28 scheduled for October 19, 2021. 1 to the structural conflict-of-interest discovery to be clearly 2 erroneous or contrary to law.” Id. at 4. 3 Now over a year later, Plaintiff renews her request for 4 discovery into Defendant and Sedgwick’s relationship based upon 5 “newly discovered evidence”. See Mot. at 10-12. Defendant 6 opposes this request. See Opp’n, ECF No. 101. Plaintiff 7 replied. See Reply, ECF No. 103. After careful consideration of 8 the parties’ briefs, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion. 9 10 II. OPINION 11 The parties first dispute the applicable legal standards. 12 Opp’n at 4-6; Reply at 2-5. Plaintiff brings the motion under 13 Rule 60(b). See generally Mot. However, as Defendant points 14 out, Rule 60(b) applies only to final orders. Opp’n at 4-5. 15 Rule 60(b) clearly states: “the court may relieve a party or its 16 legal representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding.” 17 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(emphasis added). Likewise, the Ninth 18 Circuit has instructed: “Rule 60(b) . . . applies only to motions 19 attacking final, appealable orders.” U.S. v. Martin, 226 F.3d 20 1042, 1048 n.8 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Corn v. Guam Coral Co., 21 318 F.2d 622, 629 (9th Cir. 1963) (“[T]he ‘final’ judgments, 22 orders or proceedings referred to in the first sentence of 23 [Rule 60(b)] . . . are those which terminate the litigation in 24 the district court subject only to the right of appeal.”). The 25 order being attacked here is the Court’s April 27, 2020 Order, 26 denying reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s decision to 27 deny discovery into the Defendant and Sedgwick’s relationship. 28 See generally Mot. That is not a final order terminating the 1 litigation. Corn, 318 F.2d at 629. 2 It is however irrelevant that Plaintiff characterized her 3 motion as one for relief under Rule 60(b). “[T]he label attached 4 to a motion does not control its substance.” U.S. v. State of 5 Oregon, 769 F.2d 1410, 1414 n.4 (9th Cir. 1985) (internal 6 citation omitted). The substance of the present motion is a 7 request to reconsider the denial of a previous motion for 8 reconsideration. The Court analyzes it as such below. 9 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly 10 provide for motions for reconsideration. But where 11 reconsideration of a non-final order is sought, the court has 12 “inherent jurisdiction to modify, alter or revoke it.” Martin, 13 226 F.3d at 1049 (internal citation omitted). “The authority of 14 district courts to reconsider their own orders before they become 15 final, absent some applicable rule or statute to the contrary, 16 allows them to correct not only simple mistakes, but also 17 decisions based on shifting precedent, rather than waiting for 18 the time-consuming, costly process of appeal.” Id. The Eastern 19 District local rule governing motions for reconsideration 20 requires counsel to identify “the material facts and 21 circumstances surrounding each motion for which reconsideration 22 is sought, including: (1) when and to what Judge or Magistrate 23 the prior motion was made; (2) what ruling, decision, or order 24 was made thereon; (3) what new or different facts or 25 circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were 26 not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for 27 the motion; and (4) why the facts or circumstances were not shown 28 at the time of the prior motion.” E.D. Cal. Local R. 230(j). 1 Here, Plaintiff argues new evidence showing Sedgwick is not 2 a disinterested third-party warrants reconsideration of the 3 denial of discovery into the relationship between Defendant and 4 Sedgwick. Mot. at 10-11. That new evidence is an alleged joint 5 defense agreement between Sedgwick and Defendant. Id. According 6 to Plaintiff, the joint defense agreement “demonstrates that 7 Sedgwick appears to have a vested interest in supporting whatever 8 position is taken by AT&T and vice versa.” Id. at 10. Thus, 9 Plaintiff contends she is “entitled to the discovery previously 10 sought to demonstrate the extent to which AT&T and Sedgwick are 11 aligned together, and arguably against the interests of 12 Plaintiff.” Id. To support her argument, Plaintiff relies on 13 Stephan v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, 697 F.3d 917 14 (9th Cir. 2012). Id. 15 But that case is distinguishable. See 697 F.3d 917. In 16 Unum, the plaintiff sought to discover communications “between 17 Unum’s claims analysts and Unum’s in-house counsel about how the 18 insurance policy under which [plaintiff] was covered ought to be 19 interpreted and whether [plaintiff’s] bonus ought to be 20 considered monthly earnings within the meaning of the Plan.” Id. 21 at 932. Reversing the district court’s denial of discovery of 22 these communications, the Ninth Circuit relied heavily on the 23 evidence of defendant-Unum’s “history of biased-decisionmaking” 24 in their claims administration. Id. at 934. Here by contrast, 25 there is no evidence before the Court of a history of biased 26 decisionmaking by Defendant. Additionally, Unum involved the 27 discoverability of pre-litigation administrative review 28 communications. See 697 F.3d 929-939. The Court thus agrees 1 with Defendant that Plaintiff “fails to show how that well-known 2 exception to a fiduciary’s attorney-client privilege has any 3 connection to attorney-client communications made after the 4 commencement of this litigation.” Opp’n at 7. For these 5 reasons, Unum, along with the mere allegation of a joint defense 6 agreement, do not persuade the Court reconsideration is warranted 7 and that discovery into Defendant and Sedgwick’s relationship 8 should be ordered. 9 Lastly, each of the parties toss in a request for attorneys’ 10 fees and costs incurred as a result of this motion. Opp’n at 4, 11 10; Reply at 1, 3. But in making what is effectively a passing 12 reference in their briefs, neither party demonstrates an 13 entitlement to attorneys’ fees and costs. Further, while the 14 Court finds the new evidence of a joint defense agreement to be 15 insufficient to warrant reconsideration, the presentment of this 16 evidence nonetheless complies with the local rule requirement of 17 identifying new facts or circumstances. E.D. Cal. Local R. 18 230(j). Accordingly, both parties’ requests for fees and costs 19 are denied. 20 21 III. SANCTIONS 22 Plaintiff exceeded the Court’s 5-page limit on reply 23 memoranda. See Reply; see also Order re Filing Requirements 24 (“Order”) at 1, ECF No. 3-2. Violations of the Court’s standing 25 order require the offending counsel, not the client, to pay 26 $50.00 per page over the page limit to the Clerk of Court. Order 27 at 1. Moreover, the Court did not consider arguments made past 28 the page limit. Id. Plaintiff’s reply brief exceeded the nee nnn nee enn ne nnn EO IE SE ISIE IEE ON NE 1 Court’s page limit by 3 pages. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s counsel 2 must send a check payable to the Clerk for the Eastern District 3 of California for $150.00 no later than seven days from the date 4 of this order. 5 6 Iv. ORDER 7 For these reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion is 8 DENIED. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: November 24, 2021 11 kA 12 teiren staves odermacr 7008 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28