Raymone Bain v. MJJ Productions, Inc.
409 U.S. App. D.C. 468
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- Bain and Bain & Associates sued MJJ Productions and Michael Jackson entities for services, alleging at least $44 million in fees.
- A December 2007 Release released claims, stating Jackson would pay Bain $488,820.05 in full satisfaction of all monies owed.
- Jackson died in early 2009, after the district court granted summary judgment in favor of MJJ based on the Release’s terms.
- Bain moved for Rule 60(b)(2) relief in 2010, introducing an April 2008 letter from Jackson stating he had no knowledge of the Release or signing it.
- The district court denied relief, ruling Bain knew of the letter at trial or failed to exercise due diligence; Bain appealed.
- The appellate court (D.C. Circuit) agreed the district court’s first ground was improper but affirmed on the alternative basis that Bain failed to exercise reasonable diligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does trial awareness preclude Rule 60(b)(2) relief? | Bain contends awareness does not bar relief. | MJJ argues awareness at trial precludes relief as ‘newly discovered’ evidence. | Awareness alone does not bar relief. |
| Was Bain's diligence in pursuing the 2008 letter reasonable under Rule 60(b)(2)? | Bain sought discovery and attempted to locate the letter but did not mention it to the court. | Jackson's estate and Bain should have provided or located the original letter sooner; Bain failed to pursue diligence. | No; Bain failed to exercise reasonable diligence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, 841 F.2d 1133 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (district court discretion in Rule 60(b)(2) balancing finality and justice)
- Serio v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co., 266 F.2d 418 (5th Cir. 1959) (distinguishing destroyed vs. surviving documents for diligence)
- Parrilla-Lopez v. United States, 841 F.2d 16 (1st Cir. 1988) (movant's conscious decision not to present evidence at trial; not grounds for new trial)
- Yachts Am., Inc. v. United States, 779 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (endorsing consideration of alternate copies when seeking relief)
- Zurich N. Am. v. Matrix Serv., Inc., 426 F.3d 1281 (10th Cir. 2005) (due diligence requires active pursuit of missing evidence)
- In re Hope 7 Monroe St. Ltd. P’ship, 743 F.3d 867 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (discourages tactical or unexplained discovery gaps in Rule 60(b) practice)
- Lightfoot v. District of Columbia, 555 F. Supp. 2d 61 (D.D.C. 2008) (definition of newly discovered evidence can hinge on discovery timing)