Johnson v. Epsilon Data Management, LLC, 3:23-cv-01016

Danielle Johnson sued Epsilon Data Management, LLC, alleging race, color, and national origin discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act.
The court granted summary judgment for Epsilon on all discrimination claims but let Johnson’s retaliation claim proceed to trial, where the jury ruled for Epsilon.
Johnson’s lawyers withdrew after judgment; Johnson then proceeded pro se and filed several post-judgment motions.
Johnson’s motions sought discovery (HR investigation notes), appointment of a forensic reviewer, sanctions, relief from judgment under Rules 60(b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(6), reconsideration of summary judgment, and sanctions/judicial referral for opposing counsel.
The court reviewed all of Johnson’s filings collectively and denied each, finding them procedurally or substantively deficient.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Compel production of HR Notes	HR notes are not privileged; Epsilon did not provide privilege log	Request is untimely; HR notes privileged	Denied as untimely; no good cause to modify scheduling order
Rule 37 Sanctions for Discovery Violation	Failure to produce notes & privilege log warrants sanctions	No violation of a court order	Denied; no failure to obey a court order
Rule 60(b) Relief (New Evidence)	Newly discovered recordings and messages contradict trial testimony	Not newly discovered; evidence in Johnson’s possession since 2021	Denied; not new evidence, no diligence shown
Rule 60(b)(3) Relief (Fraud/Misconduct)	Epsilon engaged in fraud/misconduct preventing fair case	No clear evidence of fraud/misconduct; could have been presented at trial	Denied; no clear and convincing evidence of fraud or prejudice
Rule 60(b)(6) Relief (Extraordinary Circumstances)	Ineffective counsel and defense misconduct justify relief	Ineffective counsel not a basis in civil cases	Denied; attorney errors attributable to client
Reconsider Summary Judgment on Discrimination	Procedural issues and lack of evidence due to counsel/defense	No new arguments, evidence, or error of law	Denied; no manifest error or new evidence
Sanctions/Judicial Referral (Perjury)	Defense counsel failed to correct witness perjury	No knowledge of false evidence; Johnson’s claims insufficient	Denied; no proof of willful or knowing false statements

Hesling v. CSX Transp., Inc., 396 F.3d 632 (5th Cir. 2005) (standard for granting Rule 60(b)(2) and (b)(3) relief)
Nat’l City Golf Fin. v. Scott, 899 F.3d 412 (5th Cir. 2018) (Rule 60(b)(2) strict requirements and burden)
Pryor v. U.S. Postal Serv., 769 F.2d 281 (5th Cir. 1985) (attorney errors are chargeable to the civil client)
Wallace v. Tex. Tech Univ., 80 F.3d 1042 (5th Cir. 1996) (late-produced evidence not basis for reconsideration without valid excuse)
United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (1993) (definition and elements of perjury in federal court)