Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00322/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00322-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

FELIPE MATA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

OWENS & MINOR, et al.,

Defendant

 /

No. C 04-0322 MMC ARB

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM

JUDGMENT; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND

JUDGMENT; SETTING ASIDE ORDER

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND

VACATING JUDGMENT ENTERED

THEREON; SETTING ASIDE CLERK’S

TAXATION OF COSTS; SUSTAINING

DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION

Before the Court are plaintiff’s motions for relief from judgment, pursuant to Rules

60(b)(1) and 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and to alter or amend

judgment, pursuant to Rule 59(e). The matters came on regularly for hearing May 27,

2005. John E. Skeath appeared on behalf of plaintiff. Steven Spaulding and Leopoldo J.

Chanco of Jedeikin, Spaulding, Meadows & Schneider appeared on behalf of defendant.

Having considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motions,

the arguments of counsel, and for the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, the

Court rules as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment is hereby GRANTED, to the extent

plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1), and DENIED, to the extent plaintiff seeks

relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6).

2. Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend judgment is hereby DENIED.

3. The Court’s order of April 5, 2005 granting defendant’s motion for summary

Case 3:04-cv-00322-MMC Document 134 Filed 06/01/05 Page 1 of 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

1

By order filed April 5, 2005, the Court denied the objection, to the extent defendant

objected to the denial of its motion for sanctions.

2

As set forth at the hearing on the motions, the non-expert cut-off is also extended

for the purpose of reserving subpoenas issued before the above-referenced order granting

summary judgment.

2

judgment is hereby SET ASIDE, and the judgment entered April 7, 2005 thereon is hereby

VACATED.

4. The Clerk’s notice of taxation of costs, filed May 4, 2005, is hereby SET ASIDE.

5. Defendant’s objection to the Order Denying Motions to Compel and Motion for

Sanctions, and Granting Motion for Protective Order, filed February 22, 2005, is hereby

SUSTAINED, to the extent defendant objects to the denial of its motions to compel and the

granting of plaintiff’s motion for a protective order.1

 Specifically, the non-expert discovery

cut-off is extended to September 16, 2005, for the limited purpose of allowing defendant to

take discovery on the issues of plaintiff’s immigration status and driving conduct, and to

depose plaintiff’s wife, who is not entitled to rely on the spousal privilege.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2005 /s/ Maxine M. Chesney 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00322-MMC Document 134 Filed 06/01/05 Page 2 of 2