Byrd v. Fingerlakes \ Developmental Disabilities Services Office O.P. W.D.D.
6:14-cv-06470
W.D.N.Y.Jun 25, 2019Background
- Pro se plaintiff Vickie Dianne Byrd sued NYS Finger Lakes Developmental Disabilities Services (OPWDD/FLDDSOO) alleging employment discrimination under Title VII, ADEA, ADA, and NYHRL after an unsuccessful application.
- The Court granted defendant’s renewed summary judgment motion on November 22, 2018, concluding Byrd failed to show she was qualified and defendant offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for not hiring her; judgment entered November 26, 2018.
- Byrd filed post-judgment motions seeking vacatur of the judgment, asserting an undisclosed audio recording would prove her qualifications and discriminatory intent.
- The Court treated Byrd’s latest post-judgment filing as a Rule 60(b) motion and considered relief under subsections (2) (newly discovered evidence) and (6) (catch-all).
- The Court found the audio recording not newly discovered (Plf. had possessed it since at least 2017 and previously declined to produce it) and Byrd failed to show its substance or how it would change the summary-judgment outcome.
- The Court denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), concluding Byrd’s deliberate decision not to produce the recording before summary judgment precluded a finding of extraordinary circumstances or extreme hardship; denied IFP on appeal and warned of Rule 11 sanctions for further baseless filings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the audio recording is newly discovered evidence under Rule 60(b)(2) | Byrd: recording will prove she was qualified and show discriminatory motive | Def.: recording was in Byrd’s possession and she failed to produce it; contents not shown | Not newly discovered; Byrd had possession and did not show materiality or that it would change the result |
| Whether Rule 60(b)(6) relief is available (extraordinary circumstances) | Byrd: unrevealed recording justifies vacatur as exceptional circumstance | Def.: Byrd’s refusal to produce recording was a tactical choice; no extraordinary circumstances | Denied: no exceptional circumstances or extreme hardship; relief not warranted for deliberate tactical choices |
| Whether Byrd may proceed IFP on appeal | Byrd implicitly seeks IFP to appeal the denial | Def.: oppose (implicit) given lack of merit | Denied: Court certifies appeal not taken in good faith and denies IFP |
| Whether further filings may trigger sanctions | Byrd continues to file repeated motions for relief | Def.: (implicit) filings are baseless | Court warned sanctions under Rule 11 may follow continued baseless filings |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Potamkin Cadillac Corp., 697 F.2d 491 (2d Cir. 1983) (standard for truly newly discovered evidence under Rule 60(b)(2))
- Westerly Electronics Corp. v. Walter Kidde & Co., 367 F.2d 269 (2d Cir. 1966) (newly discovered evidence standard)
- United States v. All Right, Title & Interest In Prop. & Premises Known As 710 Main St., Peekskill, N.Y., 753 F. Supp. 121 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (criteria for newly discovered evidence affecting rehearing)
- Gemveto Jewelry Co., Inc. v. Jeff Cooper, Inc., 613 F. Supp. 1052 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (evidence must be material and likely to produce different result)
- Cobos v. Adelphi Univ., 179 F.R.D. 381 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) (Rule 60(b)(6) relief requires exceptional circumstances or extreme hardship)
- United States v. Cirami, 563 F.2d 26 (2d Cir. 1977) (scope of Rule 60(b)(6) and extraordinary circumstances standard)
- Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58 (2d Cir. 1986) (Rule 60(b) does not relieve deliberate tactical decisions)