Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jordan v. U.S. Department of Labor

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri.

March 11, 2019

JACK JORDAN, Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Defendant.

          ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S RULE 58 MOTION, (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S RULE 60 MOTIONS, AND (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER

          ORTRIE D. SMITH, SENIOR JUDGE.

         Currently 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 denied.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff 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.

         The DOL 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. Doc. #24.

         Shortly 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. Doc. #36.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Plaintiff's Rule 58(a) Motion (Doc. #28)

         Pursuant 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.

         “Every 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.

         B. Plaintiff's Rule 60 Motions (Docs. #27 and 29)

         Plaintiff 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, at 4.

         (1) This Court's December 14, 2018 Order

         “The 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).[1] Plaintiff's Rule 60 motions - at least the initial briefing of his Rule 60 motions - were directed at this Court's December 14, 2018 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.