Court Opinion

ID: 2964495
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:26:30.889443+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:55.483743
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

        No. 96-1695

                                    LAROY D. COX,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                 PETER J. O'MALLEY, MILLER THOMAS, TRENT W. HOLLAND,
                         WILLIAM DUNN, FRANCIS M. ROACHE AND
                                   CITY OF BOSTON,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Robert B. Collings, U.S. Magistrate Judge]
                                             _____________________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Cyr, Circuit Judge,
                                      _____________

                     Aldrich and Campbell, Senior Circuit Judges.
                                           _____________________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

             Valeriano Diviacchi, with whom Diviacchi Law Office was on brief
             ___________________            ____________________
        for appellant.
             Kimberly M. Saillant, with whom Merita A. Hopkins was on brief
             ____________________            _________________
        for appellees City of Boston and Roache.
             Ronald Kovner, with whom Merita A. Hopkins and Christopher J.
             _____________            _________________     ______________
        Muse were on brief for appellees O'Malley, Thomas and Holland.
        ____
             Thomas Drechsler for appellee Dunn.
             ________________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                   January 22, 1997
                                                     
                                 ____________________

                    Per Curiam.  Plaintiff  Laroy Cox challenges a district
                    Per Curiam.  
                    __________

          court ruling denying relief from  a judgment dismissing his claim

          for damages against the City of Boston and various members of its

          police  department.  See 42 U.S.C.    1983; Mass. Gen. L. ch. 12,
                               ___

            11I.  The  claim arose  out of Cox's  interrogation during  the

          Boston Police investigation of  the Carol Stewart homicide.   The

          principal thrust of the Cox appeal is that counsel for defendants

          failed  to produce  some 900  pages of  material from  the Boston

          Police Department  Internal Affairs  Division ("IAD")  which were

          properly requested  during pretrial  discovery.  As  the district

          court  did not  abuse its  discretion, see  Anderson v.  Cryovac,
                                                 ___  ________     ________

          Inc., 62 F.2d 910, 923 (1st Cir. 1988), we affirm. 
          ____

                    The  record  discloses that  Cox's  counsel knew,  well

          before trial, that  the IAD  files existed; in  fact, counsel  so

          conceded in  the motion for  reconsideration filed below.   More-

          over,  in a  pretrial letter  mailed June  1, 1995,  the City  of

          Boston offered to provide the IAD files to Cox's counsel, but the

          offer was  declined.  Thus, Cox  has not explained  how the prof-

          fered IAD  files can have been evidence  "newly discovered" after

          the entry of judgment, let alone evidence not discoverable in the

          exercise of due diligence.  See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2).  
                                      ___

                    Cox nonetheless contends that  his Rule 60(b)(2) motion

          should have been granted because  defendants had an ongoing  duty

          to supplement their  discovery responses.   See Fed.  R. Civ.  P.
                                                      ___

                                          2

          26(e).1  This  contention reduces  to a claim  that a  responding

          party's  alleged failure  to supplement  its document  production

          excuses the proponent of a Rule 60(b)(2) motion  from demonstrat-

                              
          ____________________

               1Rule 26(e) provides as follows: 

                    "(e) Supplementation of  Disclosures and  Re-
                         Supplementation of  Disclosures and  Re-
                    sponses.   A party who has  made a disclosure
                    sponses
                    under subdivision (a) or  responded to a  re-
                    quest  for  discovery  with a  disclosure  or
                    response  is under  a duty  to supplement  or
                    correct the disclosure or response to include
                    information thereafter acquired if ordered by
                    the court or in the following circumstances:
                              (1) A party is under a duty to
                         supplement at appropriate intervals
                         its  disclosures under  subdivision
                         (a)  if  the party  learns  that in
                         some material  respect the informa-
                         tion  disclosed  is  incomplete  or
                         incorrect and if the  additional or
                         corrective   information  has   not
                         otherwise  been  made known  to the
                         other parties  during the discovery
                         process  or in  writing.   With re-
                         spect  to  testimony  of an  expert
                         from  whom  a  report  is  required
                         under  subdivision   (a)(2)(B)  the
                         duty  extends  both to  information
                         contained  in the report and to in-
                         formation provided  through a depo-
                         sition of the expert, and any addi-
                         tions  or other changes to this in-
                         formation shall be disclosed by the
                         time the  party's disclosures under
                         Rule 26(a)(3) are due.
                              (2)  A party  is under  a duty
                         seasonably  to  amend  a prior  re-
                         sponse to an interrogatory, request
                         for  production,   or  request  for
                         admission if the party  learns that
                         the  response  is in  some material
                         respect incomplete or incorrect and
                         if  the  additional  or  corrective
                         information has  not otherwise been
                         made  known  to  the other  parties
                         during the discovery process  or in
                         writing."

                                          3

          ing that he  did not know  the files existed  and could not  have

          discovered  them through due diligence in time  to move for a new

          trial  under Rule  59(b).   This contention  not only  lacks case

          support,  but runs directly counter to the plain language of Rule

          60(b)(2),  requiring a showing by the movant that the evidence in

          question  was  "newly  discovered  [and]  by  due  diligence  [on

          movant's part] could not have been discovered in time to move for

          a new trial under  Rule 59(b) . . . ."  Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2).

          As Cox's counsel  knew of the existence of the  IAD files, and in

          the exercise of  due diligence could  have discovered their  con-

          tents as well, we reject the Rule 60(b)(2) claim as frivolous. 

                    Cox fares no better  with his Rule 60(b)(3) claim.   As

          he  did not  move to  compel production  of the  IAD  files after

          defendants objected to their  production,2 defendants were  never
                                                                      _____

          obligated to produce them.  See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(B).  The
                                      ___

          trial  transcript  plainly  indicates  that  defendants  made  no

          misrepresentations or  misleading  statements regarding  the  IAD

          files.  Rather, defendants represented  to Cox's counsel at trial

          that he had been provided with  the entire homicide file.3  Given
                                                     ________

                              
          ____________________

               2On January 13, 1994, defendants City of Boston  and Francis
          Roache  objected to  Cox's pretrial  request  to produce  the IAD
          files, based on a Sept. 20, 1993 stay order issued  by the Massa-
          chusetts  Appeals Court in Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Cmm'r of
                                     ___________________    _______________
          the City of Boston. 
          __________________

               3At trial,  Cox's counsel moved  to compel production  of an
          eleven-page statement  by Detective O'Malley.   The next  day the
          City of Boston produced the document and stated that it "came out
          of the  Internal Affairs file  of the Boston  Police department."
          Cox's counsel neither asked  about the rest of the  IAD file, nor
          inquired whether it contained other documents. 

                                          4

          that counsel for the City of Boston had made a  pretrial offer on

          June 1, 1995, to  produce all IAD files,4 this  written notifica-

          tion substantially met its obligations under Rule 26(e), see Fed.
                                                                   ___

          R. Civ. P. 26(e)(2) ("A party is under a duty seasonably to amend

          a prior response to [a] . . . request for production . . . if the

          additional or corrective information  has not otherwise been made
                        ______________________          ___________________

          known to the  other parties  during the discovery  process or  in
          _____                                                          __

          writing.") (emphasis added).  Having spurned the City of Boston's
          _______

          offer to  produce the  IAD files,  Cox cannot  plausibly maintain

          that the district  court abused its  discretion in rejecting  his

          belated  request for  relief from  judgment.   See United  States
                                                         ___ ______________

          Fidelity  & Guar. Co. v.  Baker Material Handling  Corp., 62 F.3d
          _____________________     ______________________________

          24, 29  (1st Cir.  1995)  ("A party  may not  prevail  on a  Rule

          60(b)(3) motion . . . where [it] has  access to disputed informa-

          tion or  has knowledge of inaccuracies in an opponent's represen-

          tations at the time of the alleged misconduct.").

                    The district  court judgment is affirmed  and costs are
                    _______________________________________________________

          awarded to appellees City of Boston and Francis M. Roache.
          _________________________________________________________

                    SO ORDERED.
                    SO ORDERED
                    __________

                              
          ____________________

               4After  the Supreme  Judicial  Court vacated  the stay,  see
                                                                        ___
          supra note 2, on April 5, 1995, the City of Boston notified Cox's
          _____
          attorney  in writing that pursuant  to the SJC  decision in Globe
                                                                      _____
          Newspaper Co., it was willing to produce the IAD documents.
          _____________

                                          5