## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju ly3,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
DAVI D B E UGL E R a n d DI ANA BEUGLE R, P l ai nti ffs-A pp el l ants , v. N o. 06- 5093 BU RL I NGT ON NOR T HE RN & S ANT A F E RA I L WAY COMP ANY,

D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT F O R T H E N O R T H E R N D I S T R I C T O F O K L A H O MA

( D . C . N O . 0 3 - C V - 0 6 2 6 - C V E - F H M) C har l es W . A rm brus t erI I I , M i chae l T . B l ot evogel , G ai l G . R ens hs aw , W ood R i ver, Il l i no i s, and R ob ertM i t chell , O klahom a C i ty , O klahom a, for Plai nti ffsA pp el l ants . Ju liet N . B re n n a n , A . C a m p B o n d s, Jr ., M u sk o g e e , O k lah o m a , fo r D e fe n d a n tA ppel l ee. B efo re M c CO NNELL , M c KAY , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. M c CO NNELL , C i r cui tJ udge. W hi l e l i ft i ng a r ai l r oad cr os s i ng gat e, appel l antD avi d B eugl er , a r ai l r oad c o n d u c to r fo r U n io n P a c ific, inju re d h is n e c k a n d b a c k b ytu rn in g h is b o d yin-2-

resp o n se to a truc k h o rn. H e su ed an o ther railr o ad , ap p ell ee B u rl ing ton N o rth ern & S a n ta F e R a ilw a yC o m p a n y , fo r n e g lig e n c e , cla im in g th a t itw a s re sp o n sib le forhi s i nj ur i es beca us e he ha d t o l i ftthe gat es w hi l e a Burl i ngt on N or thern cr ew fix ed a se cti o n o f b rok en U n ion P ac ifi c track . W e h o ld tha t B u rl ing ton N o rth ern did not have a co m m on l aw du t yt o p rot ectM r. B eug l er fr om i njuryi n these circu m stan ce s. W e the refo re a ffirm the d istri ct co u rt ’s ord er g ran ti n g su m m ary j udgm entt o B ur l i ngt on N or t hern. I. O n D e c e m b e r 9 , 2 0 0 2 , M r. B e u g ler w a s c o n d u c tin g a tra in f ro m K a n sa s to A r kans as w hen he e ncount er ed a pr obl em atan i nt er l ocker

— an i nt er s ect i on of a nor t h- s out h r ai l r oad tr ack a nd an ea s t - w es tt r ack— i n V i ni t a, O kl ahoma. T he i nt er l ockerw as s har ed byU ni on Paci fi c, hi s empl oy er , and appe l l antB ur l i ngt on N or t hern. E ar l i ert hatm or ni ng, t w o B ur l i ngt on N or thern empl oy ees had not i ced a t en- t o t w el ve- foots ect i on of br oken r ai l on U ni on Paci fi c’ s s i de of the i nt er l ocker . A B ur l i ngt on N or t hern cr ew arr i ved t o fi x the tr ack be caus e appe l l ee had contr actual r es pons i bi l i t yform ai nt ai ni ng the i nt er l ocker . T he damage w as su c h th a t th e c re w c o u ld n o t re p a ir th e e x istin g p iec e o f tra c k ; in ste a d , the yh a d to re m o v e a n d re p lac e it. B u rl ing ton N o rth ern ’s crew h ad alread yrem o v ed the d am ag ed tr ac k b efo re M r . B eugl er ’ s tr ai n s t opped att he i nt er l ocker , s o M r . B eugl ercoul d notcont i nue u n til th e re p a irs w e re fin ish e d . M r. B e u g ler a sk e d th e c re w h o w lo n g it w o u ld-3-

t ake t o fi ni s h t he r epai r s ; t heyes t i m at ed i tw oul d t ake for ty - fi ve mi nut es t o one h o u r. D u ri n g M r. B eu g ler’s discu ssion w ith the c rew , B u rl ing ton N o rth ern ’s sign al m aintaine r ap p roa ch ed the g rou p an d told the m that “[ t] h e sig n al ga tes are d o w n a t M a in S tre e t.” A p p . 4 5 . T h is c ro ss in g w a s lo c a ted o n th e U n io n P a c ific l i ne a s hor tdi s t ance dow n t he tr ack f r om the i nt er l ocker . T he M ai n St r eetgat es act i vat ed, ordr opped, beca us e the r emoval of the i nt er l ockertr ack c aus ed a br eak i n t he el ectr i c s i gnal ci r cui tt hatcontr ol s the gat e. T hi s fal s e ac t i vat i on bl ocked t he cr os s i ng and ca us ed a ba ck- up of vehi cl es on bot h s i des of the r ai l l i ne eve n th o u g h n o tr a in w a s a p p ro a c h in g . B ur l i ngt on N or t hern’ s s i gnal m ai nt ai nertr i ed t o fi x the fa l s e ac t i vat i on by “j um pi ng t he tr ack, ” w hi ch i nvol ves r er out i ng the el ectr i c s i gnal ar ound the d am ag ed tr ac k to clo se th e c ir cu it . H is effo rt s fa il ed to fix the p rob lem . M r. B eugl er , obs ervi ng t hes e eve nt s , deci ded t o l i ftthe s i gnal arm s m anual l yatthe M ai n St r eetcr os s i ng s o t hatvehi cl es coul d pr ocee d. H e t es t i fi ed i n hi s depos i t i on t hatno one t ol d hi m t o do t hi s . A ppel l ant ’ s A pp. 45. R ather , he di d s o beca us e, “bei ng t he onl y[U ni on Paci fi c] author i tyconnec t ed w i th the r oad, atthat l ocat i on, ” he “ fel tl i ke [i t ] w as [hi s ] r es pons i bi l i tyt o gettr aff i c movi ng” al ong M a in S tr e e t. Id. A ft erhi s depos i t i on concl uded, M r . B eugl ert es t i fi ed i n an a ffi d a v i tt h a th e a l s o l i f t e d t h e g a t e s “ i n a n e ffo r tt o p r e v e n tUn i o n P a c i fi c , my e m p lo y e r, f

ro m b e in g iss u e d a c itatio n fo r th e o b stru c tio n o f th e c ro ss in g , an d to-4-

pr eventm y s el f, per s onal l y , fr om bei ng i s s ued a c i t at i on orarr es t ed forthe obs t ruct i on. ” Id. at401. M r . B eugl ert es t i fi ed thathe had l i ft ed gat es m anual l yhi s “w hol e l i fe, ” or a t le a s t d u ri n g th e e n tir e s p a n o f h is th ir ty-fo u r ye a r c a re e r w ith U n io n P a c ific . Id. at117. H e pegge d t he numberof t i m es he has m anual l yl i ft ed cr os s i ng gat es at“more t han 100. ” Id. a t 3 9 9

– 4 0 0 . H e a lso h a s “ w itn e ss e d o th e r U n io n P a c ific empl oy ees l i ft i ng cr os s i ng gat es t o l ettr aff i c thr ough on m or e than 100 occ as i ons w h e n th e g a tes w h e re d o w n d u e to a m a lf u n c tio n o r o th e r re a so n u n re late d to m ot or i s ts afe t y . ” Id. at400. T hanks t o M r . B eugl er ’ s exper i ence , he knew thatthe gat es w oul d be l i ght e n o u g h fo r h im to lift w ith o n e h a n d , ev e n th o u g h h e h a d to h o ld th e g a tes w ith hi s arm ful l yext ended a bove hi s head t o al l ow tr aff i c t o pr ocee d thr ough the cr os s i ng. H e fi r s tl i ft ed the gat e bl ocki ng w es tbound tr aff i c, then s w i t ched t o t he e a stb o u n d g a te b e fo re re tu rn in g to th e w e stb o u n d g a te. A t th a t p o in t, a V in ita pol i ce offi cerarr i ved and a s ked i f he c oul d hel p M r . B eugl erl i ftthe gat es s o that t r aff i c coul d fl ow s i m ul t aneous l yi n both di r ect i ons . T he off i certhen l i ft ed the gat e foreas tbound t r aff i c, w hi l e M r . B eugl ercont i nued t o l i ftthe gat e for w e s tb o u n d tr a ffic . A f ter M r. B e u g ler h a d b e e n liftin g th e c ro ss in g g a tes m a n u a llyfo r tw e n ty m i nut es , t he B ur l i ngt on N or t hern cr ew fi ni s hed the r epai r , s o the cr os s i ng gat es began f unct i oni ng pr oper l y . B utaboutone t o tw o m i nut es befor e the r epai rw as-5-

fi ni s hed— w hi l e M r . B eugl erw as s t i l l l i ft i ng the gat e forw es tbound tr aff i c— he hear d a truck horn. H e thoughtt he truck dr i verhonked “t o get[hi s ] advi ce on w h e th e r t h e tru c k w o u ld b e a b le to g e t th ro u g h th e g a te s .” A p p e lla n t’ s B r. 2 1 . M r . B eugl er , w ho w as s t andi ng w i th hi s back t o tr aff i c, turned hi s neck t o l ook at t he t i p of the gat e t o s ee i f the truck coul d pr ocee d w i thouts tr i ki ng i t . I n doi ng s o, he s us t ai ned i nj ur i es t o hi s neck a nd back. T hos e i nj ur i es form the bas i s for th is la w s u it. M r. B e u g ler su e d U n io n P a c ific u n d e r th e F e d e ra l E m p lo y e rs’ L iab ili ty A c t, a n d B u rl in g to n N o rt h e rn fo r c o m m o n la w n e g lig e n c e u n d e r O k la h o m a la w . T h e d istric t co u rt g ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f B u rlin g to n N o rth e rn in F eb rua ry2 0 0 5 , b u t did n o t certi fythe ju d g m en t as fina l un d er R u le 54 (b). M r. B eugl ercont i nued t o l i t i gat e hi s cl ai m s agai ns tU ni on Paci fi c unt i l D ece m ber 2005, w hen thos e part i es s et t l ed. D ay s befor e s et t l i ng w i t h U ni on Paci fi c, M r . B eugl erfi l ed a mot i on as ki ng t he di s t r i ctcour tt o r econs i deri t s s um m aryj udgm entor deri n B ur l i ngt on N o rth ern ’s fa v o r. H e a ll eg ed h e h ad o b tai n ed ev iden ce sinc e B u rl ing ton N o rth ern w as di s m i s s ed thats uppor t ed hi s theorythathi s r es pons e t o the fa l s e ac t i vat i on w as for es eea bl e. T he di s t r i ctcour tcons trued hi s m ot i on as one forr el i ef unde r R ul e 60( b) of the Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e and de ni ed i ton M ar ch 28, 2006, hol di ng t hatal l of M r . B eugl er ’ s al l egedl ynew l ydi s cover ed evi dence “w as ei t heravai l abl e t o t he C our tpr i ort o i t s February3, 2005 j udgm ent[di s m i s s i ngW e rejec t B u rlin g to n N o rth e rn ’s a rg u m e n t th a t M r. B e u g ler ’s a p p e a l is 1 u n tim e ly. See A ppel l ee’ s B r . 9, 13. T he thi r ty - daydeadl i ne i n Feder al R ul e of A p p e llate P ro c e d u re 4 (a )(1 )(A ) m u st b e re a d in c o n c e rt w ith F e d e ra l R u le o f C iv il Pr ocedur e 54( b) and 28 U . S. C . § 1291. O urj ur i s di ct i on ext ends onl yt o “fi nal decis i on s, ” 28 U . S . C . § 1 29 1, and i n cases “i nv olvi ng m ult i ple cl ai m s or par t i es, “anyor der. . . w hi ch adj udi cat es few ert han al l t he cl ai m s ort he r i ght s and l i abi l i t i es of fe w ert han al l t he part i es ” i s fi nal

— and thus appea l abl e— onl yi f “the cour t. . . di r ect [s ] t he entr yof a f i nal j udgm entas t o one orm or e butfew ert han all o f th e c lai m s o r pa rt ies. ” F ed . R . C iv. P. 54 (b). T he di s t r i ctcour tdi d noti s s ue a Rul e 54( b) cert i fi cat i on. A ccor di ngl y , had M r . B eugl erat t empt ed t o appea l the February3, 2005, s um m aryj udgm entor der di s m i s s i ng B ur l i ngt on N or t hern w i thi n thi r tyday s of thatdat e, w e w oul d have la c k e d ju ri s d ic tio n . See Hei m ann v. Snead , 1 3 3 F . 3 d 7 6 7 , 7 6 9

– 7 0 (10 th C ir . 1998) . T he t i m e t o fi l e an a ppeal began t o run on M ar ch 28, 2006, w hen the di s t r i ctcourti s s ued i t s fi nal or derdi s m i s s i ng al l r emai ni ng cl ai m s . M r . B eugl er file d h is n o tic e o f

a p p e a l o n A p ri l 1 7 , 2 0 0 6 , w e ll w ith in th ir ty d a y s o f th a t d a te . M r . B e u g l e r ’ s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l w a s t h e r e fo r e t i m e l y.

-6- B ur l i ngt on N or t hern] ordi s cover abl e w i th due di l i gence . ” A ppel l ant ’ s A pp. 1134. T he courtal s o r ej ect ed M r . B eugl er ’ s ar gum entthati tm i s i nt erpr et ed O kl ahoma negl i gence l aw . M r . B eugl erfi l ed a not i ce of appea l on A pr i l 17, 2006, appea l i ng fr om t he gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof B ur l i ngt on N o rth ern an d the d en ial o f h is m o ti o n to rec o n side r. 1 II. A . T h e D istr ict C o u r t C o r r e c tly H e ld th a t B u r lin g to n N o r th e r n D id N ot O w e M r. B eugl er a D ut y of C are. I n di ver s i t ycas es , fede r al court s appl ypr i nci pl es of s t at e s ubs t ant i ve l aw a n n o u n c e d b yth e S ta te ’s h ig h e s t c o u rt . See Sal tLake Tr i bune Publ ’g C o. v. M gm t . P l anni ng, Inc. , 4 5 4 F . 3 d 1 1 2 8 , 1 1 3 4 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). “T o est abli sh negl i gence l i abi l i t yforan i nj ur y ” underO kl ahoma l aw , “pl ai nt i ffs m us tpr ove-7-

t hat( 1) defe ndant s ow ed them a d u ty to p ro tec t th e m f ro m inju ry , (2 ) d e fe n d a n ts b re a c h e dth a t du ty , an d (3) d efen d an ts’ breach w as a p roxi m ate cause of pl ai nt i ffs ’ i nj ur i es . ” Ig leh a rt v . B d . o f C o u n ty C o m m ’rs o

f R o g e rs C o u n ty , 60 P .3 d 4 9 7 , 5 0 2 (O k la. 2 0 0 2 ). T h e d istric t co u rt g ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t in favorof B ur l i ngt on N or t hern aft erhol di ng thatthe r ai l r oad had no dutyt o pr ot ect M r . B eugl erfr om t he harm he s uffe r ed, and thatM r . B eugl erfai l ed t o i ntr oduce su fficie n t ev id e n c e to c re a te a g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial fa c t as to p ro x im a te c a u s e . See A pp el l ant’ s A pp . 10 07 –0 8. O n ap peal, M r. B eug l er as ks us t o reverse bot h of thes e hol di ngs . W e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s concl us i on that B ur l i ngt on N or t hern di d notow e M r . B eugl era dutyof ca r e and ther efor e nee d notaddr es s t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s pr oxi m at e ca us e hol di ng. “The t hreshol d q uest i on for neg l i gen ce sui t s i s w hethera defend ant ow es a pl ai nt i ff a dut yof ca r e. ” Igl eha rt , 60 P . 3d at50 2 (em ph asi s om i t t ed). T his i s a q u e s tio n o f

la w , i d. , w hi ch court s r es ol ve byexami ni ng “the r el at i ons hi p betw een t he part i es and the gene r al r i s ks i nvol ved i n the comm on undert aki ng. . . . T he cour tdeci des w hethera defendants t ands i n s uch a r el at i ons hi p t o a pl ai nt i ff that t he defendantow es an obl i gat i on of r eas onabl e conduc tfort he bene fi tof the pl ai nt i ff. ” D elbr elv. D oenges B r os . For d, Inc. , 913 P. 2d 1318, 1320–21 ( O kl a. 1996) . M anyfac t or s i nform t he dutyanal y s i s , but t h e m o s ti m p o r t a n tc o n s i d e r a t i o n i s fo r e s e e a b i l i ty. G e n e r a l l y a d e fe n d a n t o w e s a d u tyo f c a re to a ll p e rso n s w h o a re fo re se e a b ly endange r ed byhi s conductw i th r es pectt o al l r i s ks w hi ch make the-8-

conductunr eas onabl ydanger ous . For es eea bi l i tyes t abl i s hes a “z one of r i s k, ” w hi ch i s t o s ayt hati tform s a bas i s foras s es s i ng w hether t he conduc tcr eat es a gene r al i zed a nd for es eea bl e r i s k of harm i ng other s. Igl eha rt , 60 P. 3d at502 ( emphasi s and s om e i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and fo o tno tes o m itted). W e conc l ude thatB ur l i ngt on N or thern di d notow e M r . B eugl er— an e m p lo y e e o f

a n o th e r ra ilro a d

— a c o m m o n law d u tyto p ro tec t h im f ro m inju ryin t hes e ci r cumst ance s . B ur l i ngt on N or thern’ s al l egedl ynegl i gentconductw as re p a irin g th e b ro k e n tra c k in su c h a w a ya s to a c tiv a te th e c ro ss in g g a te. T h is undoubt edl ycr eat ed a for es eea bl e zone of r i s k t o a w i de r ange of per s ons . B ut w e nee d notdefi ne thatzone’ s pr eci s e bounds i n thi s cas e bec aus e, w hat everthey m a yb e , an o th e r ra ilro a d ’s tra in e d e m p lo y e e liftin g c ro ss in g a rm g a tes m a n u a lly s o t h a tt r a ffi c c a n fl o w i s n o twi t h i n th e m. A s M r. B e u g ler ’s o w n e v id e n c e a ttes ts, ra ilro a d c o n d u c to rs a re tra in e d to safelyan d rou ti n elyli ft g ates. H e testi fied that “[ a]ll [th e] o ld h ea d co n d u ctors [he] everw or ked w i t h” tr ai ned hi m how t o l i ftcr os s i ng gat es , A ppel l ant ’ s A pp. 1 3 9 ; th a t h e h a d lif

te d g a te s m a n u a lly m o re th a n 1 0 0 tim e s h im s e lf, i d. at399–40; t hathe had “ w i t nes s ed otherU ni on Paci fi c empl oy ees l i ftcr os s i ng gat es t o l et t r aff i c thr ough on m or e than 100 occ as i ons , ” i d. at400; and thatbeca us e he ha d l i ft ed gat es “doze ns of t i m es , ” he di d notfor es ee a nypos s i bi l i tythathe w as goi ng to h u rt h im s e lf

b ylif tin g th e M a in S tr e e t c ro s s in g g a te s , i d. at143. O ther-9-

evidence est abli shes that l i ft i ng fal sel yact i vated cross i ng gates m anu al l yw as a r out i ne, “comm on pr act i ce. ” Id. at1129–30 ( aff i davi tof M ark Pol k, a form er U ni on Paci fi c empl oy ee, w ho al s o t es t i fi ed thathe l i ft ed gat es m or e than 100 tim e s); s ee als o i d. at945–46 ( aff i davi tof D avi d Spr i ggs , a tw enty - y earvet er an conduct or , w ho t es t i fi ed thatl i ft i ng gat es m anual l yw as a “c om m on occurr ence ” th a t h e p e rso n a llyp e rfo rm e d m o re th a n tw e n ty -fiv e tim e s); i d. at775 ( depos i t i on o f R ich a rd E ld rid g e , a U n io n P a c ific s ig n a l m a in tain e r, w h o lifte d g a tes “ p ro b a b ly 5 0 ti m es” ). I n l i g h to f

t h i s e v i d e n c e , B u r l i n g t o n N o r th e rn a c tu a l l y r educe dthe zone of r i s k byi nform i ng M r . B eugl erof the M ai n St r eetfal s e ac t i vat i on. M r . B eugl er w a s a tra in e d p ro fe ss io n a l w h o se a c tio n s d e c re a se d th e lik e lih o o d o f inju ryto th o se w ith in th a t zo n e . A n in d iv id u a l w h o su ffe rs a n o rd in a rya n d u n fo re se e a b le w or k i nj ur yi n cour s e of pe r form i ng hi s pr ofes s i onal dut i es t o hi s empl oy er cann ot s ue an otherperson fo r cr eat i ng the o ccasi on for the p erform ance o f t ho se d u ties , ev e n if

th a t p e rso n ’s a c tio n w a s n e g lig e n t. T o be s ur e, B ur l i ngt on N or thern’ s conducti n r epai r i ng the tr ack w as cert ai nl yt he fi r s tl i nk i n t he cha i n of eve nt s thatl ed t o M r . B eugl eri nj ur i ng hi m s el f. T hats eems t o be M r . B eugl er ’ s theoryof how B ur l i ngt on N or thern w as negl i gent . B utunderO kl ahoma l aw , thati s i ns uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h the exi s t ence of a dutybeca us e i tdoes nott etherthe for es eea bi l i tyi nqui ryt o the anc horthe O kl ahoma Supre m e C our thas s peci fi ed: the “r i s ks w hi ch make the conduc t-10-

unr eas onabl ydanger ous . ” Igl eha rt , 60 P. 3d at502 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks o m itted). B u rlin g to n N o rth e rn d id n o t h a v e a d u tyto p ro tec t M r. B e u g ler f ro m a ll pos s i bl e i nj ur i es t hatm i ghtbe s pat i al l yort empora l l yr el at ed t o hi s s t op atthe i nt er l ockerw hi l e w ai t i ng fort he cr ew t o r epai rthe tr ack. I ns t ead, B ur l i ngt on N or t hern had a dutyt o pr ot ecthi m onl yfr om i nj ur i es tr ace abl e t o “r i s ks w hi ch ma k e ” l i f

t i n g t h e g a t e s “ u n r e a s o n a b l yd a n g e r o u s . ” ByM r . Be u g l e r ’ s o wn evi dence , i ti s notunr eas onabl ydanger ous foran expe r i ence d r ai l r oad empl oy ee to lift a c ro ss in g a rm a t a d o w n -tra c k ra ilro a d c ro ss in g ; h e h a s d o n e th is a ll h is life a n d s o h a v e m a n yo th e rs . W e poi ntouti n concl us i on thatthi s opi ni on di s cus s es onl yB ur l i ngt on N or t hern’ s comm on l aw dut i es beca us e M r . B eugl ers oughtdamages onl yfor comm on l aw negl i gence . W e do notaddr es s w hateffect , i f any , the Feder al R a ilro a d S a fe tyA c t an d re g u latio n s p ro m u lg a ted th e re u n d e r m ig h t h a v e o n th is c a s e . C f
. Mauldi n v. Wor ldcom , Inc. , 263 F. 3d 1205, 1211 ( 10th C i r . 2001) ( decl i ni ng t o cons i derE R I SA pr eempt i on w her e the part i es fai l ed t o br i ef the is s u e ). B . T he D i s t ri ct C ourt D i d N ot A buse I t s D i s cre t i on by D eny i ng M r. Beugl e r ’ s R ul e 60 ( b) M ot i on. Fi nal l y , w e addr es s M r . B eugl er ’ s cont ent i on thatt he di s tr i ctcourterr ed by d en y ing h is R u le 60 (b) m o ti o n . “O u r t ask u p o n rev iew ” o f a d istri ct co u rt ’s-11-

d en ial o f a R u le 60 (b) m o ti o n “is t o d eterm ine o n lyw h ethe r th e d istri ct co u rt abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng s uch r el i ef. ” P el i can Prod. C or p. v. Mar i no , 893 F. 2d 1143, 1145 ( 10t h C i r . 1990) . W hen doi ng s o, w e ar e mi ndful thatR ul e 60( b) “r el i ef i s extr aor di naryand mayonl ybe gr ant ed i n exce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s . ” Amoc o Oi lCo. v . EPA , 231 F. 3d 694, 697 ( 10th C i r . 2000) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ark s o m itted). A ft err evi ew i ng t he r ecor d, w e ar e convi nced thatthe di s tr i ctcour t ’ s rul i ng w as notan abus e of di s cr et i on. W e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s concl us i on that t he bul k of the “ne w l ydi s cover ed evi dence ”— var i ous aff i davi t s and depos i t i ons and M r . B eugl er ’ s r es pons es t o i nt err ogat or i es , A ppel l ant ’ s A pp. 1133–34— w as noti n fac t“new ” bec aus e i tw as know n ordi s cover abl e befor e the courtent er ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof B ur l i ngt on N or thern. A ppel l anti s corr ectthatt he Publ i c Law B oar d rul i ng i n favorof M r . B eugl erw as ent er ed on M ar ch 25, 2005, near l yt w o m ont hs aft ert he courtgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entt o B ur l i ngt on N o rth e rn . T h e d istric t co u rt w a s n o n e th e les s w ith in its d isc re tio n to d e n yth e R u le 60( b) m ot i on, how ever , beca us e the Publ i c Law B oar d’ s rul i ng s i m pl yfi nds that U n io n P a c ific v io late d M r. B e u g ler ’s e m p lo ym e n t ag re e m e n t. T h a t fin d in g is irre lev a n t to th e d isp o sitiv e q u e stio n in th is c a se : w h e th e r, an d to w h a t ex ten t, B url i ng t on Northern o w e d M r. B e u g le r a d u ty o f c a re .-12-

T h e c irc u m sta n c e s o f th is c a se a re fa r f

ro m th o se e x c e p tio n a l en o u g h to w arran t R u le 60 (b) reli ef. W e the refo re a ffirm the d istri ct co u rt ’s de n ial o f M r. B eugl er ’ s m ot i on. III . T h e j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED .