Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-mc-00115/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-mc-00115-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bond Safeguard Insurance Company
Plaintiff
Molly Floto
ThirdParty Defendant
Jimmy Camp Development, Inc.
Defendant
Deborah Sweeney
ThirdParty Defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOND SAFEGUARD INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

JIMMY CAMP DEVELOPMENT, INC.,

Defendant.

No. 2:13-mc-0115-TLN-KJN

ORDER

Presently pending before the court is Bond Safeguard Insurance Company’s (“BSIC”) 

motion for reconsideration of the court’s prior March 17, 2014 order (ECF No. 18) declining to 

impose sanctions on third party witness Deborah Sweeney (“Sweeney”). (ECF No. 20.) 

Sweeney has opposed the motion. (ECF No. 24.)1 For the reasons below, the court DENIES the 

motion.

2

 

1

 Sweeney was previously represented in this action by attorney Brian Barrad. However, along 

with her opposition to BSIC’s motion, Sweeney submitted a proposed order granting leave for 

attorney Robert Cameron to substitute in as new counsel for Sweeney. (ECF No. 23.) The form 

is signed by Sweeney, former attorney Brian Barrad, and substituting attorney Robert Cameron. 

The court grants that request, and Mr. Cameron is substituted as Ms. Sweeney’s new counsel. 

2

The court finds the motion suitable for resolution without oral argument on the record and 

written briefing pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), and thus vacates the October 8, 2015 hearing. 

Case 2:13-mc-00115-TLN-KJN Document 25 Filed 10/06/15 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

This miscellaneous action was commenced on November 13, 2013. (ECF No. 1.) On 

February 19, 2014, based on an application filed by BSIC, the court issued an order to show cause 

why contempt citations should not be issued and monetary sanctions imposed against third party 

witnesses Sweeney, Molly Floto (Sweeney’s daughter), and their attorney Brian Barrad, due to

their alleged failure to comply with plaintiff’s subpoenas and this court’s December 6, 2013 order 

directing compliance with those subpoenas. (ECF Nos. 6, 9, 11.) The subpoenas essentially 

called for any documents and electronically stored information concerning an individual named 

George Kramer (Sweeney’s brother and a former defendant/person of interest in underlying 

litigation in Colorado), as well as entities with which Kramer was associated. (ECF No. 1-1, 

Exs. C & D.) As the court noted at the time, it appeared that BSIC was primarily seeking to learn 

Kramer’s whereabouts and contact information, as well as information concerning his properties 

and assets.

At a March 13, 2014 hearing on the order to show cause, Sweeney largely represented that 

she had no written documents, e-mails, or text messages for the past 6 1⁄2 years that would be 

responsive to the subpoenas. According to Sweeney, she built a second residence with her own 

money on real estate owned by Kramer located at 1992 Vista Mar Drive in Eldorado Hills, 

California, and obtained a promissory note and deed of trust from Kramer essentially to protect 

Sweeney’s interest in that property. She produced the deed of trust, but was unable to locate the 

promissory note. (See generally ECF No. 19.) After the hearing, on March 17, 2014, the court 

ordered Sweeney to conduct an additional search and file a supplemental declaration. (ECF No. 

18.) The court also discharged the order to show cause and declined to impose any monetary 

sanctions. (Id.)

Thereafter, on September 3, 2015, almost 18 months after the court’s March 17, 2014 

order was entered, BSIC filed the instant motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 20.) BSIC 

apparently commenced a new civil action in this court against Kramer and Sweeney in August 

2014. See Bond Safeguard Insurance Company v. Kramer et al., 2:14-cv-1896-JAM-CKD (E.D. 

Cal.). According to BSIC, Sweeney’s August 7, 2015 deposition and other discovery in that case 

have revealed that Sweeney is purportedly in possession of the above-referenced promissory note,

Case 2:13-mc-00115-TLN-KJN Document 25 Filed 10/06/15 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

as well as several documents that relate to the construction of her home on Kramer’s property and 

which also reference Kramer. BSIC alleges that Sweeney made multiple misrepresentations and 

false statements in connection with the prior proceedings in this action, and that the court should 

therefore reconsider its prior order declining to impose sanctions against Sweeney. In turn, 

Sweeney counters that the promissory note was only discovered subsequent to the court’s order, 

and that she in good faith believed that the construction documents were not responsive to the 

subpoena, particularly given that the second house’s construction was openly discussed at the 

March 13, 2014 hearing.

BSIC cites no particular authority pursuant to which it seeks reconsideration. However, 

the court liberally construes the motion as seeking reconsideration of the court’s prior order 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).3 That rule provides that:

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal 

representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the 

following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable 

neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable 

diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a 

new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called 

intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an 

opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been 

satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment 

that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no 

longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). BSIC’s motion for reconsideration, which alleges the recent discovery of 

false statements and misrepresentations by Sweeney, appears to be based on Rule 60(b)(2) (newly 

discovered evidence) and Rule 60(b)(3) (fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing 

party).4

////

 

3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) is plainly not a plausible procedural mechanism for 

reconsideration here, because BSIC is not moving for relief within 28 days of the entry of 

judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

 

4

Sweeney is clearly BSIC’s opposing party in this miscellaneous case seeking compliance with 

subpoenas, because BSIC sought Sweeney’s compliance with its subpoena by an application for 

an order to show cause, and Sweeney opposed the order to show cause and the imposition of 

sanctions. 

Case 2:13-mc-00115-TLN-KJN Document 25 Filed 10/06/15 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

However, BSIC cannot obtain reconsideration pursuant to those provisions, because BSIC 

filed its motion more than a year after entry of the court’s March 17, 2014 order. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 60(c)(1) (“A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time – and for reasons 

(1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the 

proceeding.”); Nevitt v. United States, 886 F.2d 1187 (9th Cir. 1989) (explaining that a district 

court is without jurisdiction to consider a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1)-(3) more than a year 

after the judgment or order was entered); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2) (stating that a court 

“must not extend the time to act” under Rule 60(b)).

Even though a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4)-(6) need only be 

made within a reasonable time and is not subject to the one-year limitation, any reliance on those 

provisions would be misplaced. Rule 60(b)(4) and 60(b)(5), by their terms, clearly do not apply

to BSIC’s motion in this case, and Rule 60(b)(6), known as the “catch-all” provision, “applies 

only when the reason for granting relief is not covered by any of the other reasons set forth in 

Rule 60.” Delay v. Gordon, 475 F.3d 1039, 1044 (9th Cir. 2007). Here, BSIC’s reasons for 

seeking reconsideration are plainly covered by Rules 60(b)(2) and 60(b)(3).

Therefore, the court does not reach the merits of the matter, but instead concludes that 

BSIC’s motion for reconsideration must be denied as untimely. “While enforcement of the time 

limit may seem unfair, the general purpose of Rule 60(b) is to strike a proper balance between the 

conflicting principles that litigation must be brought to an end and that justice must be done.” 

Zendel v. ABC Video Prods., 2013 WL 1396572, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2013). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Sweeney’s substitution of attorney (ECF No. 23) is APPROVED and Robert Cameron 

is substituted as new counsel for Sweeney. 

2. BSIC’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 20) is DENIED.

3. The October 8, 2015 hearing is VACATED.

4. The Clerk of Court shall close this miscellaneous case.

////

////

Case 2:13-mc-00115-TLN-KJN Document 25 Filed 10/06/15 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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 6, 2015

Case 2:13-mc-00115-TLN-KJN Document 25 Filed 10/06/15 Page 5 of 5