Dist. Ct. did not err in denying plaintiff’s Rule 60(d)(3) motion seeking to set aside Dist. Ct.’s entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant-employer in plaintiff-employee’s defamation action arising out of defendant’s expression of concern to local college about plaintiff’s course materials for class he was teaching, where plaintiff based said motion on claim that defendant had committed fraud on Dist. Ct. by submitting perjured testimony and affidavit in support of underlying summary judgment motion. Denial of motion was appropriate, where: (1) plaintiff had proffered only evidentiary discrepancies that were known at time summary judgment had been granted; and (2) plaintiff advanced no new evidence to support claim that defendant’s lawyers had knowingly committed fraud on court. Also, Dist. Ct. could properly impose Rule 11 sanctions against plaintiff’s counsel for filing instant Rule 60(d)(3) motion, where counsel had failed to present any new evidence of fraud to support instant motion.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Sanctions