Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-01363/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-01363-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS A.GONDA, JR., M.D.,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, 

INC.; and THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL 

GROUP, INC. LONG TERM DISABILITY 

PLAN FOR PHYSICIANS,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 13-cv-01063-SC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE 

TO FILE MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

I. INTRODUCTION

Now before the Court is Plaintiff Thomas A. Gonda, Jr., M.D.'s 

motion for leave to a file a motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 

98 ("Mot."). The Court finds it appropriate to rule on the motion 

without further briefing or a hearing pursuant to Civil Local Rule 

7-9(d). For the reasons set forth below, Dr. Gonda's motion is 

DENIED.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The Civil Local Rules require a party to obtain leave of the 

Case 3:11-cv-01363-SC Document 101 Filed 02/12/15 Page 1 of 8
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

court before moving for reconsideration. A party seeking 

reconsideration of an order must show that (1) a material 

difference in law or fact exists from that which was presented to 

the Court, and that the party applying for reconsideration could 

not have known such fact through the exercise of reasonable 

diligence at the time of the order; (2) new material facts or a 

change of law occurred after the issuance of the order; or (3) a 

manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or 

dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court 

before such interlocutory order. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b).

"Indeed, 'a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, 

absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is 

presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or 

if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.'" Kona 

Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 

2000). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) permits the Court to 

relieve a party from an order for several reasons: "(1) mistake, 

inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 

evidence that by due diligence could not have been discovered 

before the court's decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) 

voiding of the judgment; (5) satisfaction of the judgment; (6) any 

other reason justifying relief." Shove v. Ayers, No. C08-2946 RMW 

(PR), 2009 WL 2605372, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2009); see also

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). "To prevail upon a motion to reconsider, a 

party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature 

to induce the Court to reverse its prior decision." Walker v. 

Carnival Cruise Lines, 107 F. Supp. 2d 1135, 1138 (N.D. Cal. 2000).

///

Case 3:11-cv-01363-SC Document 101 Filed 02/12/15 Page 2 of 8
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

III. DISCUSSION

Dr. Gonda seeks reconsideration of the Court's order granting 

Defendants leave to amend their answer to add an affirmative 

defense. See ECF No. 94. That order permitted Defendants to add 

an affirmative defense alleging that Dr. Gonda released his claims 

in this action when he signed a settlement agreement (the 

"Settlement Agreement") disposing of his wrongful termination 

lawsuit against Defendant The Permanente Medical Group ("TPMG"). 

The need for Defendants to plead the additional affirmative defense 

arose when Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment which 

argued that Dr. Gonda had waived all claims against Defendants by 

signing the Settlement Agreement. See ECF Nos. 67 ("Defs. SJ 

Mot."), 84 (finding that Defendants were required to amend their 

answer before they could argue the affirmative defense).

The Court's order granting leave to amend was premised on a 

finding that Dr. Gonda would not suffer undue prejudice as a result 

of Defendants' amendment. Dr. Gonda had argued that allowing 

Defendants leave to amend their answer would prejudice him, because 

the amendment would require the Court either to postpone the 

hearing on cross motions for judgment or deny Dr. Gonda adequate 

time to conduct discovery. The Court found that Dr. Gonda had the 

opportunity to conduct discovery before the discovery deadline. In 

part, the finding of no prejudice was based on Defendants' 

representation to the Court that Dr. Gonda had failed to timely 

pursue discovery into the Settlement Agreement and that any need to 

conduct additional discovery after the discovery deadline would be 

prejudice of his own making. Specifically, Defendants argued that 

"[i]f Gonda needed additional time for discovery, he should have 

Case 3:11-cv-01363-SC Document 101 Filed 02/12/15 Page 3 of 8
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

advised the Court in September of 2014 instead of sitting on his 

hands." ECF No. 85 ("Defs.' Supp. Br.") at 9.

Dr. Gonda argues that the Court failed to consider certain 

material facts. Dr. Gonda informed TPMG of his intent to depose 

its 30(b)(6) deponent regarding the Settlement Agreement on October 

17, 2014. ECF No. 69-1 ("Higbee Decl.") ¶ 3. Then, on November 5, 

Dr. Gonda served a notice of deposition of TPMG relating to "all 

communications" regarding the drafting of the Settlement Agreement. 

See ECF No. 82 ("Defs.' Disc. Br.") at 1. Dr. Gonda noticed the 

deposition for November 13, 2014, about two weeks before the close 

of discovery.

None of these facts appear in Dr. Gonda's supplemental brief 

regarding Defendants' leave to amend their answer. See ECF No. 91 

("Pl.'s Supp. Br."). They appear in Defendants' counsel's 

declaration, which was attached to Defendants' motion for a 

protective order, filed on November 12, 2014. The Court terminated 

that motion without prejudice because Magistrate Judge Ryu is 

handling discovery issues in this case. See ECF No. 79. The Civil 

Local Rules require a party seeking leave to move for 

reconsideration to show that the Court failed to consider "material 

facts . . . which were presented to the Court before such 

interlocutory order." Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). It is unclear whether the 

facts Dr. Gonda cites were "presented to the Court," as they were 

presented only in a motion that should have been filed before Judge 

Ryu, and not in any of the papers or exhibits related to the 

briefing on Defendants' leave to amend or the underlying summary 

judgment motion.

However, Defendant's presentation of the facts in their 

Case 3:11-cv-01363-SC Document 101 Filed 02/12/15 Page 4 of 8
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

supplemental brief was at best disingenuous and misleading and at 

worst deliberately dishonest. The discovery cutoff in this case 

was December 1, 2014. Defendants suggested to the Court that any 

need for Dr. Gonda to conduct additional discovery after the 

deadline was his own fault because he had been "sitting on his 

hands" before the deadline. See Defs.' Supp. Br. at 9. The truth 

is that Dr. Gonda informed Defendants of his intention to conduct 

additional discovery on October 17, about five weeks after 

Defendants had informed Dr. Gonda that they intended to file a 

motion for summary judgment based on the Settlement Agreement, and 

about three weeks before Defendants actually filed that motion. 

Dr. Gonda noticed the deposition on November 5, one day before

Defendants filed their motion. The need to conduct additional late 

discovery, therefore was not a result of Dr. Gonda's delay. 

Rather, the discovery delay was caused because Defendants refused 

to produce a witness for the deposition and instead filed their 

motion for a protective order on November 12. To suggest to the 

Court that the delay was of Dr. Gonda's making comes uncomfortably 

close to fraud by an adverse party -- one of the reasons for relief 

specified in Rule 60(b).1

Under other circumstances, the Court might grant Dr. Gonda's 

motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. However, 

Defendants' motion for summary judgment is still pending, and 

 

1 In their motion for a protective order, Defendants also argued 

that "Gonda has known of the [Settlement Agreement] for three 

years . . . , and he has also possessed the ability to seek 

discovery as to this issue for three years." ECF No. 69 at 1. Dr. 

Gonda would, of course, have had no reason to seek discovery 

regarding the Settlement Agreement unless Defendants intended to 

rely on it as an affirmative defense. Dr. Gonda did not know that 

Defendants intended to argue that defense until September 12, 2014.

Case 3:11-cv-01363-SC Document 101 Filed 02/12/15 Page 5 of 8
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

cross-motions for judgment are set to be heard on March 6. 

Additionally, even were the Court to grant Dr. Gonda's motion for 

leave to file a motion for reconsideration, the Court would deny 

the motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, the Court finds it 

appropriate to resolve this motion now, so that Defendants' motion 

for summary judgment may be decided before the March 6 date. 

Because the facts that Dr. Gonda presents would not alter the 

Court's ruling on Defendants' leave to amend, the Court DENIES the 

motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.

For two reasons, the facts that the Dr. Gonda urges the Court 

to consider are not "of a strongly convincing nature to induce the 

Court to reverse its prior decision." Walker, 107 F. Supp. 2d at 

1138. First, the Court has concluded -- for reasons that will be 

fully explained in the order on Defendants' motion for summary 

judgment -- that the Settlement Agreement is integrated and its 

language is unambiguous. It is not susceptible to any reasonable 

interpretation that would permit Dr. Gonda's claims. Accordingly, 

the evidence that Dr. Gonda seeks through the deposition 

(communications regarding the "negotiations, drafting, review, 

analysis, interpretation and/or explanation of any of the terms of 

the settlement") would not be admissible to contradict the plain 

language of the Settlement Agreement. As a result, Dr. Gonda's 

additional discovery is unnecessary. In fact, the Court addresses 

a substantially identical issue in ruling on the summary judgment 

motion, as one of Dr. Gonda's arguments was that ruling on the 

summary judgment motion should be postponed until Dr. Gonda could 

conduct further discovery.

Second, "a finding of prejudice is not automatic but dependent 

Case 3:11-cv-01363-SC Document 101 Filed 02/12/15 Page 6 of 8
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

upon a party's ability to articulate why a late amendment is 

prejudicial." Pineida v. Lee, No. 12-CV-01171-JST, 2014 WL 

2927160, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2014) (emphasis in original). 

"The adverse party's burden of undertaking discovery, standing 

alone, does not suffice to warrant denial of a motion to amend a 

pleading." Id. (quoting U.S. ex rel Maritime Admin. v. Cont'l 

Illinois Nat'l. Bank & Tr. Co. of Chi., 889 F.2d 1248, 1255 (2d 

Cir. 1989)). Even if additional discovery were necessary in this 

case, a short postponement of the hearing date to permit Dr. Gonda 

to conduct a deposition would not constitute undue prejudice. The 

parties agreed to stay this case for almost two years during 

arbitration of Dr. Gonda's wrongful termination action and his 

administrative appeals. Dr. Gonda did not give any reason why a 

short delay to conduct another deposition would unduly prejudice 

him.

Thus the Court finds that, even if it had considered the facts 

that Dr. Gonda now presents, it would have permitted Defendants 

leave to amend. Because Dr. Gonda's "motion for 

reconsideration . . . would likely be futile if it were permitted, 

[Dr. Gonda's] motion for leave to file a motion for 

reconsideration" is denied. Samet v. Procter & Gamble Co., No. 

5:12-CV-1891-PSG, 2014 WL 1782821, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2014).

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:11-cv-01363-SC Document 101 Filed 02/12/15 Page 7 of 8
8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Dr. Gonda's motion for leave 

to file a motion for reconsideration is DENIED. It is not clear to 

the Court that Dr. Gonda has "cleared the high bar for leave to 

file a motion for reconsideration." Samet, 2014 WL 1782821, at *3. 

Even if he had, consideration of the facts that Dr. Gonda presents 

would not change the outcome.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:11-cv-01363-SC Document 101 Filed 02/12/15 Page 8 of 8