DC – Taitz v Astrue – Motion for leave and opposition

The defendant has filed its response a day late due to a confusion on their part, which requires them to petition for leave of court to file.

The opposition can be read here

Text follows. The defendants clearly outline why Orly is too late.. Orly of course disagrees but she will find out soon enough.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ, PRO SE,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER
OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION

 Defendant.

Civil Action No. 11-CV-00402-RCL  The Honorable Royce C. Lamberth

DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is untimely. This Court granted defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and entered final judgment dismissing this case with prejudice on August 30, 2011. See Docs. 33, 34.1 Nearly two years later, plaintiff now seeks reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2), on the basis of newly discovered evidence. See Doc. 45. But a motion for reconsideration on the basis of newly discovered evidence must be made “no more than a year after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c). Plaintiff’s motion therefore should be denied as untimely. See SEC v. Bilzerian, 729 F. Supp. 2d 9, 18-19 (D.D.C. 2010).

In any event, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is meritless. In order to receive relief under Rule 60(b)(2), plaintiff must establish that she has identified “‘newly discovered evidence’

1 On October 17, 2011, this Court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. See Doc. 39. On May 25, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia granted defendant’s motion for summary affirmance, and on August 29, 2012, the mandate issued in this case. See Doc. 43.

that could not have discovered through ‘reasonable diligence’” and that “must be admissible and of such importance that it probably would have changed the outcome.” Lightfoot v. District of Columbia, 555 F. Supp. 2d 61, 68 (D.D.C. 2008). Plaintiff has not demonstrated that any of the evidence she now relies upon could not have been discovered through reasonable diligence prior to this Court’s original order. She relies in her motion for reconsideration primarily upon a report she claims was released to the public on March 7, 2011, more than five months before this Court issued its final judgment. See Doc. 45 at 6. Plaintiff also has not shown how any of the evidence she relies upon, even if admissible, is “of such importance that it would probably have changed the outcome.” Lightfoot, 555 F. Supp. 2d at 68. Rather, plaintiff’s motion is premised on “nothing more than an unsubstantiated ‘bare suspicion’ of wrongdoing.’” Memorandum and Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, Doc. 39 at 3 (quoting Nat’l Archives and Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 174 (2004)).