907 F.3d 354
5th Cir.2018Background
- Hernandez, an Army reservist employed by Results Staffing, failed to appear for work July 15, 2013 after weekend military duty and visited an ER; RSI fired him under a no-call/no-show policy and he sued under USERRA.
- In discovery RSI requested July 2013 medical records; Hernandez produced a one-page doctor’s note but did not disclose additional ER records or an authorization until RSI later sought one; Hernandez’s counsel later obtained the full ER records shortly before trial.
- After a bench trial the district court denied relief to Hernandez; the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded for damages.
- On remand RSI discovered the ER records contradicted Hernandez’s trial/appellate testimony (showing headache as primary reason for visit, not service-related back aggravation) and moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) for relief from the appellate judgment.
- The district court found Hernandez and his counsel committed fraud/misrepresentations and failed to supplement discovery under Rule 26(e), concluding RSI was unfairly disadvantaged; it granted Rule 60(b)(3) relief and certified an interlocutory question, prompting this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Rule 60(b) after this court reversed | Hernandez: district court cannot set aside this court’s judgment after reversal without recall of mandate | RSI: Standard Oil permits district courts to hear Rule 60(b) motions based on post-judgment events without appellate leave | Court: District court had jurisdiction under Standard Oil; post-appeal discoveries are proper grounds for Rule 60(b) review |
| Whether signing a medical-release authorization relieves a party of discovery obligations | Hernandez: signed authorization discharges duty to produce records or supplement responses | RSI: Authorization does not excuse obligation to produce records in party’s possession or to timely supplement under Rule 26(e) | Court: Even if authorization may respond to Rule 34, once counsel had the records he had continuing Rule 26(e) duty to disclose; nondisclosure violated discovery rules |
| Whether misconduct (fraud/perjury/suppressed evidence) satisfied Rule 60(b)(3) standard | Hernandez: alleged failures were inadvertent and RSI was not prejudiced | RSI: Clear-and-convincing evidence shows intentional misrepresentations and suppression that prevented a full and fair defense | Court: District court’s factual findings met Rozier’s two-prong test by clear and convincing evidence; grant of Rule 60(b)(3) relief was not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether interlocutory appellate review may consider discretionary grant of Rule 60(b) relief | Hernandez: discretionary rulings not reviewable on §1292(b) interlocutory appeal | RSI: The discretionary decision is material to and encompassed by the certified order | Court: Appellate court may review the order that was certified; it reviews the Rule 60(b) grant for abuse of discretion and may address materially related questions |
Key Cases Cited
- Standard Oil Co. of California v. United States, 429 U.S. 17 (1976) (district courts may entertain Rule 60(b) motions without prior appellate leave)
- Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944) (discusses limits on revisiting judgments)
- Rozier v. Ford Motor Co., 573 F.2d 1332 (5th Cir. 1978) (Rule 60(b)(3) requires clear-and-convincing proof of misconduct and prejudice)
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx, 496 U.S. 384 (1990) (appellate review probes for clearly erroneous assessment of evidence)
- DeWeerth v. Baldinger, 38 F.3d 1266 (2d Cir. 1994) (district court retains jurisdiction to hear Rule 60(b) motions after reversal)
- Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc., 862 F.2d 910 (1st Cir. 1988) (suppression of discovery material presumed to inhibit uncovering adverse evidence)
- Diaz v. Methodist Hosp., 46 F.3d 492 (5th Cir. 1995) (denial of Rule 60(b)(3) where movant failed to show perjury and prejudice)