Solomon v. University of Southern California

255 F.R.D. 303

D.D.C.

2009

Check Treatment

Docket

Dennis J. SOLOMON, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 07-1811 (EGS)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Feb. 20, 2009.

262 F.R.D. 303

ity at issue by seeking inter alia past and future lost wages and benefits).

While the cost to plaintiff of producing the returns is minuscule, its societal costs are great. First, as the courts have explained in the cases cited herein, the American tax system is one of voluntary self-exaction and taxpayers might be less than candid on their returns if those returns were available to opposing parties in litigation in the ordinary course. See Nat‘l Gas Pipeline, 2 F.3d at 1411 (“Not only are the taxpayer‘s privacy concerns at stake, but unanticipated disclosure also threatens the effective administration of our federal tax laws given the self-reporting, self-assessing character of the income tax system.“).

Second, the provisions of Title VII and other civil rights statutes that permit the award of damages to those who are victimized by illegal discrimination are designed to eradicate that discrimination by encouraging victims to come forward and complain about it. There would, however, be a significant deterrent to the effectuation of that policy if every civil rights plaintiff had to produce her tax returns as a precondition of seeking damages.

While both of these social policies might have to yield to the production of tax returns in a compelling case, this is not that case. The defendant seeks the returns only because of a theoretical possibility that there was another cause for the stress about which plaintiff complains. Since that could be said of every plaintiff who claims stress in a civil rights case, the protection of tax returns from production unless essential to the resolution of the issues before the Court would quickly be rendered nugatory.

II. Plaintiff‘s Retainer Agreement

Second, defendant seeks to compel the production of plaintiff‘s retainer agreement with her attorney, arguing that it is relevant to plaintiff‘s claim for attorney‘s fees. Defs. Mem. at 4. Plaintiff, citing this Court‘s decision in Banks v. Office of the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms and Doorkeeper, 222 F.R.D. 7 (D.D.C.2004), argues that fee arrangements are only relevant if plaintiff prevails. Plains. Opp. at 4. Defendant counters that, although attorney‘s fees only become relevant to the case if plaintiff prevails, plaintiff could have sought to have the case bifurcated into a merits phase and a relief phase. Reply in Support of Defendant‘s Motion to Compel Discovery at 4. In keeping with its earlier decision in Banks, the Court concludes that, while not privileged and potentially relevant at a later point in the proceedings, plaintiff‘s fee arrangement with her attorney is not currently relevant. See Banks, 222 F.R.D. at 13. As to this document, therefore, defendant‘s request will be denied without prejudice.

An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

EMMET G. SULLIVAN, District Judge.

Pro se plaintiff Dennis J. Solomon filed a claim against the University of Southern California (“USC“), Evans & Sutherland (“E & S“), and numerous other defendants, alleging various causes of actions relating to his trademark application for the term “HoloDeck.”¹ In an opinion granting defendants’ motions to dismiss, this Court rejected plaintiff‘s claims. This Court DENIES plaintiff‘s Motion for Reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to the remaining defendants for want of prosecution.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges that since 1989 he has been developing a 3D imaging technology, which he termed “HoloDeck.” Compl. ¶¶ 1, 13-16. He asserts that in 1999 USC received a grant from the U.S. Army to build a “holographic, virtual reality space,” also called “holodeck” after the U.S. Trademark Office granted his trademark application in 2000. ¶¶ 2, 24. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB“) then granted USC leave to belatedly oppose Solomon‘s trademark application on the grounds that the term “HoloDeck” was generic. Ultimately, the TTAB entered a default judgment against Solomon, and denied his trademark application.

Solomon filed his Complaint alleging that defendants: (1) violated his civil rights and due process; (2) did not have standing to oppose the trademark application before the TTAB; (3) attempted to monopolize some aspect of the technology at issue and interfere with interstate commerce; (4) “defrauded the U.S. Government by submitting proposals based on unlawful [sic] obtained designs of Solomon“; and (5) conspired to interfere with business relations and engaged in unfair competition by opposing Solomon‘s trademark application. Compl. ¶¶ 15, 32-43.

Solomon asked the Court to: (1) vacate the TTAB default judgment; (2) find USC without standing to oppose the trademark application; (3) allow the grant of the HoloDeck trademark to Solomon to stand; and (4) award damages. Compl. at 6. USC filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, arguing that the doctrine of res judicata bars the suit. E & S also moved to dismiss, arguing that the Complaint fails to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). This Court granted defendant USC‘s Motion to Dismiss, with prejudice, on the basis of res judicata. This Court also granted E & S‘s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff was ordered to show cause by no later than July 25, 2008 why this complaint should not be dismissed as to the remaining defendants for want of prosecution. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration on July 28, 2008 and a Renewed Motion for Reconsideration on September 29, 2008.

Dennis J. Solomon, Yarmouth Port, MA, pro se.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff argues that this Court‘s holding in Solomon v. University of Southern California, 2008 WL 2751335 (D.D.C. July 15, 2008), was erroneous. Solomon challenges this Court‘s holding that his claims are barred by res judicata, and he also argues that gave E & S sufficient notice. Defendants note that Solomon has proffered no new arguments.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) allows a party to file a Motion for Reconsideration, but these motions “are disfavored and relief from judgment is granted only when the moving party establishes extraordinary circumstances.” Niedermeier v. Office of Baucus, 153 F.Supp.2d 23, 28 (D.D.C.2001) (citing Anyanwutaku v. Moore, 151 F.3d 1053, 1057 (D.C.Cir.1998)). “A Rule 59(e) motion ‘is discretionary’ and need not be granted unless the district court finds that there is an ‘intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.‘” Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C.Cir.1996) (citation omitted). Plaintiff has not met this standard in his motion. He identifies no change of controlling law or new evidence. Neither does he demonstrate the need to correct a clear error, nor has he established extraordinary circumstances. Plaintiff‘s arguments were presented before this Court in Solomon and soundly rejected. See Jung v. Ass‘n of Am. Med. Coll., 226 F.R.D. 7, 9 (D.D.C.2005) (“Rule 59(e) motions ‘may not be used to relitigate old matters ....‘” (citing Niedermeier, 153 F.Supp.2d at 28)). This Court did not commit clear error.

Solomon has continued to file complaints against USC making the same claims. Courts have continually dismissed them under the doctrine of res judicata. Solomon‘s Complaint against E & S failed to satisfy the notice requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). This Court need not waste valuable time and resources by reiterating the same reasoning this Court relied upon when it granted defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. For the reasons this Court clearly articulated in Solomon, this Court DENIES plaintiff‘s Rule 59(e) motion. See 2008 WL 2751335, at *2-*5.

In Solomon, the Court ordered plaintiff to show cause by no later than July 25, 2008 why the complaint against the remaining defendants should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. Plaintiff did not file a responsive pleading to the order. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the complaint as to the remaining defendants is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff‘s Motion to Reconsideration is DENIED. The Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to the remaining defendants for want of prosecution. An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

SO ORDERED.

EMMET G. SULLIVAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Notes

Plaintiff names the following as defendants in the Complaint: University of Southern California; Evans & Sutherland; Scott Edelman, allegedly an attorney with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher; Michael Macedonia, allegedly a contracting officer for the United States Army; the United States Trademark Office; the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB“); “Mr. Quinn,” “Mr. Hairston,” and “Mr Holtzman,” allegedly trademark judges on the TTAB; and “Mr. Dudas,” allegedly a Director of the U.S. Patent Trademark Office. Compl. ¶¶ 3-10.