Case Name: ENCOMPASS TELESERVICES, INC., an Oregon corporation, Plaintiff-counter-defendant, v. Randall Lee SCHEETS, aka Randy Scheets, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellee, Savant C.C.A., Inc., an Arizona corporation, aka Savant Call Center Associates, Inc.; et al., Counter-defendants, Michael A. Boyle, pro se, Counter-defendant-Appellant; Encompass Teleservices, Inc., an Oregon corporation, Plaintiff-counter-defendant, v. Randall Lee Scheets, aka Randy Scheets, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellee, Savant C.C.A., Inc., an Arizona corporation, aka Savant Call Center Associates, Inc. and Patrick Boyle, Counter-defendants, Michael A. Boyle, pro se, Counter-defendant-Appellant, John Cargal, Counter-defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-16
Citations: 387 F. App'x 788
Docket Number: Nos. 09-35612, 09-35719
Parties: ENCOMPASS TELESERVICES, INC., an Oregon corporation, Plaintiff-counter-defendant, v. Randall Lee SCHEETS, aka Randy Scheets, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellee, Savant C.C.A., Inc., an Arizona corporation, aka Savant Call Center Associates, Inc.; et al., Counter-defendants, Michael A. Boyle, pro se, Counter-defendant-Appellant. Encompass Teleservices, Inc., an Oregon corporation, Plaintiff-counter-defendant, v. Randall Lee Scheets, aka Randy Scheets, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellee, Savant C.C.A., Inc., an Arizona corporation, aka Savant Call Center Associates, Inc. and Patrick Boyle, Counter-defendants, Michael A. Boyle, pro se, Counter-defendant-Appellant, John Cargal, Counter-defendant.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, WARDLAW and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 387
Pages: 788–789

Head Matter:
ENCOMPASS TELESERVICES, INC., an Oregon corporation, Plaintiff-counter-defendant, v. Randall Lee SCHEETS, aka Randy Scheets, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellee, Savant C.C.A., Inc., an Arizona corporation, aka Savant Call Center Associates, Inc.; et al., Counter-defendants, Michael A. Boyle, pro se, Counter-defendant-Appellant. Encompass Teleservices, Inc., an Oregon corporation, Plaintiff-counter-defendant, v. Randall Lee Scheets, aka Randy Scheets, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellee, Savant C.C.A., Inc., an Arizona corporation, aka Savant Call Center Associates, Inc. and Patrick Boyle, Counter-defendants, Michael A. Boyle, pro se, Counter-defendant-Appellant, John Cargal, Counter-defendant.
Nos. 09-35612, 09-35719.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted July 12, 2010.
Filed July 16, 2010.
Matthew A. Goldberg, Kell Alterman & Runstein LLP, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-counter-defendant.
Michael K. Kelley, Bankruptcy Counsel, Christopher G. Lundberg, Haglund Kelly Horngren Jones & Wilder, LLP, Portland, OR, Joel Watkins, Jr., Esquire, Jess Gilbert Webster, Esquire, Mikkelborg, Broz, Wells & Fryer, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellee.
Patrick Boyle, Clackamas, OR, pro se.
Stephen F. Crew, O’Donnell & Clark LLP, Portland, OR, for Counter-defendant.
Michael Alexander Boyle, Manhattan Beach, CA, pro se.
Before: PREGERSON, WARDLAW and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Michael A. Boyle (Boyle) appeals the trial court's order denying his motion for a new trial.
"To establish that the district court abused its discretion in denying [his] motion for a new trial based upon the newly discovered evidence, the appellant[] must show that [he] discovered the evidence after trial, that [he] could not have discovered the evidence sooner through the exercise of reasonable diligence, and that the new evidence is of such magnitude that it would likely have changed the outcome of the case." Far Out Productions, Inc. v. Oskar, 247 F.3d 986, 998 (9th Cir.2001) (citation omitted).
' Boyle's newly discovered evidence consisted of Encompass Teleservices, Inc.'s financial records that, according to Boyle, revealed an erroneous accounting of a $500,000 loan Boyle made to Encompass. However, as the secretary for Encompass, Boyle maintained the financial records and had access to the documents he now asserts are newly discovered. Because Boyle previously had access to these documents, they cannot be fairly characterized as newly discovered, and the trial court acted within its discretion when it denied Boyle's motion. "Evidence is not newly discovered if it was in the party's possession at the time of [the] judgment or could have been discovered with reasonable diligence." Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 892 n. 6 (9th Cir.1994), as amended, (citation omitted).
Boyle's assertion that the trial judge erred in permitting Randall Scheets to amend his pretrial order lacks merit. The trial judge never entered a final pretrial order. Boyle cannot be prejudiced by an order that was never entered.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.