Yvonne Lewis Montgomery v. Toxey E. Hall, M.D.

592 F.2d 278, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 15725
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedApril 2, 1979
Docket78-3061
StatusPublished
Cited by36 cases

This text of 592 F.2d 278 (Yvonne Lewis Montgomery v. Toxey E. Hall, M.D.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Yvonne Lewis Montgomery v. Toxey E. Hall, M.D., 592 F.2d 278, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 15725 (5th Cir. 1979).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to vacate a judgment on grounds of alleged fraud and misconduct by the plaintiff. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) provides that a court may relieve a party from a final judgment for those reasons. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3). However, the party making the rule 60(b)(3) motion must establish by clear and convincing evidence (1) that the ad *279 verse party engaged in fraud or other misconduct and (2) that this misconduct prevented the moving party from fully and fairly presenting his case. Rozier v. Ford Motor Co., 573 F.2d 1332, 1341 (5th Cir. 1978). The resolution of these two issues is within the trial court’s discretion, and on review, our only inquiry is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Id. at 1346.

Defendant argues that the plaintiff’s alleged failure to fully answer two interrogatories constitutes the requisite misconduct. Our cases have held that a party may engage in rule 60(b)(3) misconduct if he fails to disclose evidence he knows about and the production of such evidence was clearly called for “by any fair reading” of the discovery order. Id. at 1341. We have carefully examined the record and agree with District Judge William C. Keady’s conclusion that in this case a fair reading of the discovery order did not call for the evidence in question. As Judge Keady stated, “We do not perceive that a request for the names of treating physicians can fairly be said to require the disclosure of all places where the plaintiff may have been treated without regard to the presence or absence of a treating physician.” 1

Clearly, then, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in finding that the defendant failed to establish misconduct by the plaintiff. For this reason, we affirm the trial court's denial of the defendant’s motion to vacate judgment.

AFFIRMED.

1

. In response to the request for the names of treating physicians, plaintiff failed to disclose a clinic she had visited where she had been examined by a nurse.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Trantham v. Socoper Inc
N.D. Alabama, 2022
Renfroe v. Parker
S.D. Mississippi, 2020
M.M. v. K.J.Z.
249 So. 3d 1144 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 2017)
John Poullard v. Anthony McCoy
694 F. App'x 277 (Fifth Circuit, 2017)
Antoine v. Oxmoor Preservation/One, LLC
130 So. 3d 1204 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 2012)
In re BRAGA
272 F.R.D. 621 (S.D. Florida, 2011)
Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. NL Industries
618 F. Supp. 2d 614 (S.D. Texas, 2009)
Armstrong v. Cadle Co.
239 F.R.D. 688 (S.D. Florida, 2007)
General Universal Systems, Inc. v. Lee
379 F.3d 131 (Fifth Circuit, 2004)
Salvant v. Howell
854 So. 2d 118 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 2003)
Magness v. Russian Federation
247 F.3d 609 (Fifth Circuit, 2001)
In Re Firrone
272 B.R. 213 (N.D. Illinois, 2000)
Diaz v. Methodist Hospital
46 F.3d 492 (Fifth Circuit, 1995)
Continental Eagle Corp. v. Mokrzycki
611 So. 2d 313 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
592 F.2d 278, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 15725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yvonne-lewis-montgomery-v-toxey-e-hall-md-ca5-1979.