Opinion ID: 776240
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Certification and Substitution

Text: 10 We have held that [t]he Attorney General's certification provides prima facie evidence that the employee was acting within the scope of employment. RMI, 78 F.3d at 1143. Thus, to contest the propriety of substitution, the plaintiff must produce evidence that demonstrates that the employee was not acting in the scope of employment. If the plaintiff produces such evidence, the government must then produce evidentiary support for its certification. We agree with the district court that Singleton failed to provide evidence from which we could reasonably find that Hitzeman was acting outside the scope of his employment at the time of the alleged tortious conduct. 11 Singleton contends, however, that he attempted to produce evidence -- but was thwarted by Hitzeman's refusal to attend his deposition and the district court's refusal to compel Hitzeman to attend his deposition. However, Singleton did not allege any facts in his complaint or in any subsequent filing, that, if true, would demonstrate that Hitzeman had been acting outside the scope of his employment. The Third Circuit has stated that [p]ermitting additional discovery when the Attorney General's certification is not based on a different understanding of the facts than [that] reflected in [the] complaint would undermine the intent of the Westfall Act to protect federal employees from responding to state law tort claims. Brumfield v. Sanders, 232 F.3d 376, 380 (3rd Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S.Ct. 1486 (2001). And we have held that although a district court may conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether certification is appropriate in a particular case, no hearing is needed where even if the plaintiff's assertions were true, the complaint allegations establish that the employee was acting within the scope of his/her employment. RMI, 78 F.3d at 1143. 12 Under Ohio law, an employee acts within the scope of employment if the employee acts within his authority during the course of employment even though acting intentionally or maliciously. RMI, 78 F.3d at 1143. The scope of employment issue does not focus on the alleged wrongful nature of the employee's actions; rather, the issue is the actions complained of and whether those actions are so divergent that [their] very character severs the relationship of employer and employee. Id. at 1144 (citations omitted). Other than a general complaint of a continuing pattern of ridicule, harassment and discrimination, the tortious conduct Singleton alleges in his complaint appears to have occurred within the scope of Hitzeman's employment. J.A. at 12 (Compl.). 7 Singleton claims that Hitzeman attempted to have Singleton removed from his job, filed false and degrading reports against him, punished him for pursuing his legal rights, and leaked confidential information about him. Even if true, these actions appear to have been taken within Hitzeman's authority as Singleton's superior officer during the course of employment; no fact that Singleton alleges would sever the relationship between employer and employee. 13 Furthermore, between the time of the government's removal to district court and the district court's grant of the government's motion to dismiss, Singleton could have added to the allegations in his complaint, but he did not. 8 Singleton moved for and was granted leave to file an affidavit regarding the scope-of-employment certification in February of 2000, but he never filed such an affidavit. And although Singleton filed a discovery plan and memoranda with his motions for sanctions and to compel discovery, he never explained what facts he expected the deposition of Hitzeman to elicit. As we have held in regard to summary judgment, a district court need not allow additional discovery by the nonmoving party if the party does not explain how such discovery would rebut the movant's showing of the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Good v. Ohio Edison Co., 149 F.3d 413, 422 (6th Cir. 1998); Plott v. General Motors Corp., 71 F.3d 1190, 1197 (6th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1157 (1996). Therefore, because Singleton did not allege any facts in his complaint or in subsequent filings that, if true, would demonstrate that Hitzeman was acting outside the scope of his employment and because he did not provide any explanation of what facts he expected to elicit from deposing Hitzeman, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Singleton's motion to compel Hitzeman to attend his deposition. 14 In sum, Singleton produced neither evidence that demonstrated nor any indication that he could produce evidence that would demonstrate that Hitzeman was acting outside the scope of his employment at the time of the alleged tortious conduct. Singleton therefore failed to rebut the Attorney General's scope-of-employment certification, and we conclude that the United States properly substituted itself for Hitzeman as defendant under the Westfall Act.