Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-02077/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-02077-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert Gant and Betty Gant, Husband and

Wife,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Roger Vanderpool, Sheriff of Pinal

County; et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 03-2077-PHX-EHC

ORDER

On September 14, 2010, Plaintiff Robert Gant (“Plaintiff”), now proceeding pro se,

filed a “Motion to Reconsider Jury Verdict Due to Discovery of New Evidence Which Was

Withheld From Plaintiff” (Doc. 219). Defendants have filed a Response (Doc. 221) and

Plaintiff has filed a Reply (Doc. 223).

Plaintiff alleged race, age and hostile work environment discrimination and retaliation

by the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office regarding his failure to receive a promotion in 2001 and

2004 (Doc. 100). A Jury Trial commenced on October 18, 2006 and was concluded on

November 3, 2006 (Doc. 129-150). On November 3, 2006, a Jury returned its Verdict

finding against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff’s claims for age

discrimination, race discrimination, hostile work environment, and intentional infliction of

emotional distress (Doc. 157-158). Judgment was entered on November 8, 2006 (Doc. 159).

Plaintiff’s post-trial motions were denied (Doc. 204, 205, 206). The Final Judgment on

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC Document 224 Filed 01/03/11 Page 1 of 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 - 2 -

Plaintiff’s post-trial motions was entered on April 2, 2008 (Doc. 206). Plaintiffs appealed

from this Final Judgment (Doc. 207). The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed

(Doc. 215). The Mandate issued on January 28, 2010 (Doc. 215).

Plaintiff was represented by counsel at trial (Doc. 100 & 173) and on appeal (Doc.

207). Plaintiff’s counsel was allowed to withdraw on September 24, 2010 (Doc. 220 & 222).

In support of his present Motion to Reconsider, Plaintiff refers to a fact-finding

investigation or survey conducted by the Arizona Attorney General’s Office that addressed

racial discrimination in the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office. Plaintiff alleges that the survey

was completed prior to trial and that Defendants were given a copy in 2003 but refused to

provide a copy to Plaintiff because the findings proved systemic discrimination in the Pinal

County Sheriff’s Office. Plaintiff further argues that Defendants testified during trial that

they had no knowledge of the survey and that there was no discrimination in the Pinal

County Sheriff’s Office when in fact, the survey was completed January 28, 2003 and the

Attorney General’s Investigators made recommendations to the Sheriff and Pinal County

Human Resources Department. Plaintiff argues that Defendants made untrue statements

resulting in a denial of due process. Plaintiff has submitted a copy of the alleged survey (Doc.

219 - Exhibit A), noting that it is dated “1/27/2010" which Plaintiff appears to contend shows

an “altered” document. 

Defendants argue in response that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider is untimely under

Rule 60(b)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P., that the Attorney General’s survey is not “newly discovered”

because it was disclosed by Plaintiff during discovery approximately a year before trial, and

that the survey was discussed during trial, citing to witnesses’ trial testimony. Defendants

further argue that the Attorney General objected to producing the survey (claiming attorneyclient privilege and work product) and that although Plaintiff’s counsel was aware of the

survey, counsel chose not to pursue the issue. Defendants argue lack of due diligence.

Defendants contend that the survey would not have produced a different result because the

evidence showed that Plaintiff was not promoted because he was not qualified. 

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC Document 224 Filed 01/03/11 Page 2 of 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 - 3 -

A party moving for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, is entitled to relief for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2)

newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or

other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void;

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; or

(6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the

judgment.

American Ironworks & Erectors Inc. v. North American Construction Corp., 248 F.3d 892,

899 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Rule 60(b)(2) provides for relief based on “newly discovered evidence that, with

reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under

Rule 59(b).” Under Rule 60(b)(2), the moving party must show that the evidence (1) did not

exist at the time of trial; (2) could not have been discovered through due diligence, and (3)

was of a magnitude that earlier production would have likely changed the disposition of the

case. Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 833 F.2d 208, 211 (9th Cir. 1987).

A motion based on Rule 60(b)(2) must be made “no more than a year after the entry of the

judgment or order ...” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c).

The Judgment on the Jury Verdict was entered on November 8, 2006 (Doc. 159). The

Final Judgment on Plaintiff’s post-trial motions was entered on April 2, 2008 (Doc. 206).

Plaintiff filed the pending Motion to Reconsider on September 14, 2010 (Doc. 219), more

than one year after these dates. Plaintiff’s motion based on newly discovered evidence under

Rule 60(b)(2) is untimely.

Even if the Court considers Plaintiff’s arguments relating to the Attorney General’s

survey of the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office, no relief is warranted. Plaintiff’s counsel was

aware of the survey well before trial (see Doc. 221 - Defendant’s Response - Exhibit A

[Plaintiff’s Sixth Supplemental Disclosure (signed by Plaintiff’s counsel) dated December

14, 2005 identifying as a potential witness an employee of the Arizona Attorney General’s

Office who would be called upon to testify regarding an investigation conducted by the State

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC Document 224 Filed 01/03/11 Page 3 of 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 - 4 -

Attorney General into allegations of discrimination, the results of the investigation,

interviews she and others conducted pursuant to the investigation, correspondence the

Attorney General’s Office had with Defendants and persons employed by Defendants,

including Plaintiff]). Defense counsel pursued the matter by noticing the deposition of this

witness but withdrew the deposition notice when the Attorney General’s office objected

(Doc. 221- Exhibits B, C & D). 

Defense counsel mentioned during opening statement of the trial proceedings that the

Sheriff of Pinal County asked the Attorney General’s Office to review the employment

practices of the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office and that an audit was started but not completed

(Doc. 221- Exhibit E at 15-16; see Doc. 173 - Trial Transcript [Tr.] Vol. I at 15-16). Roger

Vanderpool, Sheriff of Pinal County, testified at trial that he asked the Civil Rights Division

of the Attorney General’s Office to conduct an employment audit of the Sheriff’s Office

(Doc. 221 - Exhibit G at 494-497; see Doc. 176 - Tr. Vol. IV at 494-497). Sheriff

Vanderpool testified at trial that he asked for the report from the Attorney General’s Office

but the report was not provided (Doc. 221 - Exhibit G at 496-497; see Doc. 176 - Tr. Vol.

IV at 494-497). Alan Miles, a witness for Plaintiff, testified at trial that he was interviewed

as part of a survey (Doc. 221 - Exhibit F at 130-132; see Doc. 174 - Tr. Vol. II at 130-132).

Plaintiff has not shown that the survey or investigation was not known at the time of trial or

could not have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. Plaintiff has not shown

that a witness made false statements at trial. 

Rule 60(b)(6) provides for relief based on “any other reason that justifies relief.” Rule

60(b)(6) is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and only

where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent

or correct an erroneous judgment. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008). A

motion under Rule 60(b)(6) must be made “within a reasonable time” after entry of the

judgment or order. Plaintiff has not presented “extraordinary circumstances” so as to warrant

setting aside the Jury’s Verdict. 

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC Document 224 Filed 01/03/11 Page 4 of 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 - 5 -

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion to Reconsider Jury Verdict Due to

Discovery of New Evidence Which Was Withheld From Plaintiff” (Doc. 219) is denied.

DATED this 3rd day of January, 2011.

Case 2:03-cv-02077-EHC Document 224 Filed 01/03/11 Page 5 of 5