United States District Court, W.D. Missouri.
ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S RULE 58 MOTION,
(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S RULE 60 MOTIONS, AND (3) DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER
D. SMITH, SENIOR JUDGE.
pending are several motions. This Order only addresses
Plaintiff's Rule 58 motion, Plaintiff's Rule 60
motions, and Plaintiff's motion for order. For the
following reasons, Plaintiff's Rule 58 motion (Doc. #28)
is granted, but Plaintiff's Rule 60 motions (Docs. #27,
29) and Plaintiff's motion for order (Doc. #30) are
Jack Jordan alleges Defendant United States Department of
Labor (“DOL”) failed to release documents
pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act
(“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, with regard to two
FOIA requests. Doc. #1, ¶ 1. FOIA Request F2018-850930
sought production of certain letters sent from the Office of
Administrative Law Judges to Plaintiff. Id. ¶
2. FOIA Request F2018-858557 requested release of
“emails sent by employees of DynCorp International LLC
(“DI”) on July 30 or 31, 2013 with the subject
line: ‘WPS - next steps & actions.'”
Id. ¶¶ 4, 15. The DOL denied both
requests. Id. ¶¶ 13, 16-17. In his
Complaint, Plaintiff asked the Court to order the DOL to
produce all documents responsive to both FOIA requests.
moved to dismiss Plaintiff's claims related to FOIA
Request F2018-858557 because they were duplicative of
litigation brought by Plaintiff in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia. Jordan v. U.S.
Dep't of Labor, No. 16-1868 (D.D.C.) (“D.C.
Lawsuit”). On December 14, 2018, the Court granted the
DOL's motion, and dismissed without prejudice
Plaintiff's claims based upon FOIA Request F2018-858557.
thereafter, Plaintiff filed four motions asking the Court to
(a) set out its judgment in a separate document (Doc. #28);
(b) grant him relief with regard to the Court's
consideration of the treatment of inferences and the
DOL's credibility in the D.C. Lawsuit (Doc. #27); (c)
grant him relief with regard to the Court's consideration
of the “progress of” the D.C. Lawsuit and
“deferring” to Judge Contreras because of alleged
fraud, misrepresentation, and misconduct by the DOL and the
Department of Justice (“DOJ”) (Doc. #29); and (d)
direct the DOL to publicly file Powers' emails to Cox and
Huber (Doc. #30). The DOL opposes Plaintiff's motions.
Plaintiff's Rule 58(a) Motion (Doc.
to Rule 58, Plaintiff asks the Court to set out its judgment
in a separate document. The DOL opposes Plaintiff's
request because not all claims have been adjudicated. In his
reply, Plaintiff clarifies he is asking that
“whenever the Court does enter judgment,
” it does so in a separate document. Doc. #40.
judgment…must be set out in a separate
document….” Fed.R.Civ.P. 58(a). “A party
may request that judgment be set out in a separate
document…” Fed.R.Civ.P. 58(d). Once all claims
have been adjudicated and an appealable order is entered, the
Court, as it always does, will issue its judgment in a
separate document. Fed.R.Civ.P. 54, 58; L.R. 58.1.
Plaintiff's motion is granted.
Plaintiff's Rule 60 Motions (Docs. #27 and
filed two Rule 60 motions. In his first Rule 60 motion,
Plaintiff asks the Court grant him relief with respect to the
Court's “consideration of the treatment of
inferences and the DOL's credibility by Judge Contreras
in the D.C. Lawsuit when [this Court] stated that to the
‘best' of [its] ability to ‘discern,' the
record of the D[.]C[.] Lawsuit gave ‘no indication'
that ‘Plaintiff's rights were not adequately
protected.'” Doc. #27, at 2. In his second Rule 60
motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to “reverse its
decision dismissing claims related to FOIA Request
F2018-858557” because this Court did not properly
consider the “progress of” the D.C. Lawsuit,
should not have “‘deferr[ed] to Judge Contreras,
” and failed to consider the “fraud,
misrepresentation and egregious misconduct” by the DOL
and DOJ. Doc. #29, at 6. The DOL opposes the motions, arguing
Rule 60 does not apply to interlocutory orders. In his reply,
Plaintiff argues the Court is permitted to grant him Rule 60
relief from the D.C. District Court's judgment. Doc. #41,
This Court's December 14, 2018 Order
court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising
from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a
judgment, order, or other part of the record.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a). Relevant to Plaintiff's motions,
“the court may relieve a party…from a final
judgment, order, or proceeding for…fraud…,
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party,
” or “any other reason that justifies
relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3), (6). But Rule 60(b)
only applies to final judgments and orders. Gonzalez v.
Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 527 (2005); Interstate Power
Co. v. Kan. City Power & Light Co., 992 F.2d 804,
807 (8th Cir. 1993) (noting Rule 60(b) only applies to
motions seeking relief from final judgments). Plaintiff's
Rule 60 motions - at least the initial briefing of his Rule
60 motions - were directed at this Court's December 14,