Opinion ID: 787947
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Denial of the Motions Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37 and 60(b)

Text: 30 Petrosino moved pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) to be relieved from the award of summary judgment based on newly discovered evidence that Bell Atlantic failed to disclose in response to a discovery demand. She requested sanctions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37 based on the alleged misconduct in discovery. We briefly outline the facts pertinent to these motions. 31 During pre-trial discovery, Petrosino served interrogatories on Bell Atlantic, requesting, inter alia, information regarding other sexual harassment suits or complaints. See Interrogatory No. 22 (Has any employee [of Bell Atlantic] ever filed [a] ... complaint ... or lawsuit alleging that [Bell Atlantic] discriminated in New York City based on sex?). Bell Atlantic's response, received January 26, 2001, did not disclose the existence of a New York state suit filed by Jeanne-Marie Tisi, a Bell Atlantic employee, who, since May 1999, had worked on Staten Island in Petrosino's former department. Tisi's complaint also charges Bell Atlantic with sexual harassment in maintaining a gender-hostile work environment. 32 The district court denied Petrosino's Rule 60(b) motion concluding that the new evidence was neither admissible nor likely to have produced a different result. It also denied sanctions finding that the information fell outside the general temporal limits of the discovery requests.