Sataki v. Broadcasting Board of Governors
272 F.R.D. 21
D.D.C.2010Background
- Plaintiff Sataki, a BBG employee, sued for seven claims arising from alleged sexual harassment and retaliation at the Persian News Network and related concealment attempts.
- Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed five counts without prejudice after Defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, leaving only Privacy Act claim (Count VI) and Wagner injunctive relief (Count VII) as open.
- Defendants moved to dismiss Counts I–IV and V, and to grant summary judgment on Count VI; the Court later treated the Privacy Act claim as conceded and dismissed it, dismissing the action in its entirety.
- Plaintiff did not respond to the dispositive motion by the deadline; the Court issued an Oct. 22, 2010 Dismissal Order granting the motion in part and denying it in part, terminating the case.
- Plaintiff moved for reconsideration on Dec. 21, 2010; the Court denies relief, citing no extraordinary circumstances and upholding the primary basis for dismissal.
- The court reiterated that Wagner injunctive relief is interim and not a live standalone claim, so denial of such relief does not revive a viable action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Count VI was properly treated as conceded | Sataki argues the court erred by treating VI as conceded since no motion to dismiss was expressly granted for that count. | Defendants contend the order treated the lack of opposition as a concession for Count VI and thus dismissal was proper. | Count VI dismissal as conceded was proper summary disposition. |
| Whether the Wagner injunctive relief claim affected the dismissal | Sataki contends the Wagner claim remained viable and warrants relief from dismissal. | Defendants maintain Wagner relief is interim and not a separate live claim; denial does not leave a viable case. | Wagner relief is interim; no viable live claim remained post-denial. |
| Whether timing and alleged ex parte contacts tainted the dismissal | Sataki alleging hastiness and possible ex parte influence show prejudicial misconduct. | Defendants deny any ex parte contacts and contest the implied misconduct. | Allegations unfounded and not matter for reconsideration. |
| Whether new arguments raised in reply justify reconsideration | Sataki raises additional points in reply asserting error. | Defendants argue arguments raised late are improper to consider or do not change outcome. | Late arguments are disregarded or do not alter result; reconsideration denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Niedermeier v. Office of Baucus, 153 F. Supp. 2d 23 (D.D.C. 2001) (extraordinary circumstances required for relief from judgment)
- Ciralsky v. Central Intelligence Agency, 355 F.3d 661 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (discretion in ruling on Rule 59(e); need for intervening change or clear error)
- Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (discretionary, disfavored nature of Rule 59(e) relief)
- Wagner v. Taylor, 836 F.2d 566 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (interim injunctive relief permitted during proceedings)
- Baloch v. Norton, 517 F. Supp. 2d 345 (D.D.C. 2007) (dispositive reconsideration principles; late arguments discouraged)