T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T E N C O M P A S S T E L E S E R V IC E S , IN C . , an O r e gon c orpor a t i on, P la in tif

f - c o u n te r - d e f

e n d an t, v. R A N D A L L L E E S C H E E T S , A K A R andy S ch eet s, D e f

e n d an t- c o u n te r - c la im an t - A pp el l ee , S A V A N T C . C . A . , I N C . , a n A r i z ona corporat i on , A K A S avantC al l C ent er A s s o c ia te s , I n c .; e t a l., C o u n t er-d efen d an t s, M IC H A E L A . B O Y L E , pro se, C o u n te r - d e f e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N o. 09- 35612 D. C . No . 3 : 0 4 - c v - 0 0 8 2 1 - HU ME MOR AN DU M *

E N C O M P A S S T E L E S E R V IC E S , IN C . , an O r e gon c orpor a t i on, N o. 09- 35719 D. C . No . 3 : 0 4 - c v - 0 0 8 2 1 - HU



# FI LED JU L 16 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSP la in tif f - c o u n te r - d e f

e n d an t, v. R A N D A L L L E E S C H E E T S , A K A R andy S ch eet s, D e f

e n d an t- c o u n te r - c la im an t - A pp el l ee , S A V A N T C . C . A . , I N C . , a n A r i z ona corporat i on , A K A S avantC al l C ent er As s o c i a t e s , I n c . a n dPATR I CK BOYLE, C o u n t er-d efen d an t s, M IC H A E L A . B O Y L E , pro se, C o u n te r - d e f e n d an t - A p p e llan t, J OH N CARGA L, C o u n te r - d e f e n d an t. A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

O r e gon D e nni s J a m e s H ube l , M a gi s tr a t e Judge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d and S ubm i tt e d Jul y12, 2010

P ort l and, O r e gon B efo re: P R E G E R S O N , W A R D L A W an dR A W L IN S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M i c ha e l A . B oy l e ( B oy l e ) appe a l s the tr i a l c ourt ’ s or de rde ny i ng hi s m ot i on f o ran e w tr ia l.3

“ T o est ab l i sh th atth e d i stri ctco u rtab u sedi t s d i scret i o n i n d en yi n g [h i s] m ot i on for anew tri albase d u po n the new l y di sc ov er ed evi dence, the appel l ant [] m us ts how tha t[ he ] di s c ove r e d the e vi de nc e a f t e rtr i a l , tha t[ he ] c oul d notha ve di s c ove r e d the e vi de nc e s oone rthr ough the e xe r c i s e of r e a s onabl e di l i ge nc e , a nd tha tthe ne w e vi de nc e i s of s uc h m a gni tude thati tw oul d l i ke l yha ve c hange d the ou t com e of the ca se . ” FarO ut P r oduc t i ons , I

nc . v . O s kar , 2 4 7 F .3 d9 8 6 , 9 9 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . B o yl e’ s n ew l y d i sco v eredev i d en ce co n si st edo f E n co m p ass T el eserv i ces, I nc . ’ s f i nanc i a l r e c or ds tha t , a c c or di ng t o B oy l e , r e ve a l e d an e rr one ous a c c ount i ng of a$500, 000 l oan B oy l e m a de t o E nc om pa s s . H ow e ve r , a s the s e c r e t aryf or E nc om pa s s , B oy l e m a i nt a i ne d the f i nanc i a l r e c or ds a nd ha d a c c e s s t o the do cum ent s he now as se rt s are new l y di sc ov er ed. B ec ause B oyl e pre vi ou sl y had a c c e s s t o the s e doc um e nt s , the yc annotbe f a i r l yc har a c t e r i z e d a s ne w l ydi s c ove r e d, a n dth e tr ia l c o u rt a c te dw ith in its d is c r e tio n w h e n it d e n ie dB o y le ’s m o tio n .

“ E vi de nc e i s notne w l ydi s c ove r e d i f i tw a s i n the party ’ s pos s e s s i on a tthe t i m e of [the] j ud gm entor coul d h ave been di sc ov er ed w i th rea sonabl e di l i gence. ” W a llis v . J . R . Si m plot C o. , 2 6 F .3 d8 8 5 , 8 9 2 n .6 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) , as am ended , ( c i t a t i on om i tt ed).4

B o y le ’s a s s e rtio n th a t th e tr ia l ju d g e e rr e din p e rm ittin g R an d a ll S c h e e ts to am end h i s pre tri alorder l ac ks m er i t . T he tri alj ud ge never ent er ed a f i nal pretri al or de r . B oy l e c annotbe pr e j udi c e d bya n or de rtha tw a s ne ve re nt e r e d. AF F I RME D.