a Grand Jury Subpoena Directed to Dakota Cheese, Inc. United States of America v. Dakota Cheese, Inc.
In the Matter of a GRAND JURY SUBPOENA DIRECTED TO DAKOTA CHEESE, INC. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. DAKOTA CHEESE, INC., Appellant
Opinion
WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.
Dakota Cheese, Inc., appeals from the district court’s 1
order of June 15, 1989, denying its Rule 60(b) motion for relief from the district court’s December 2, 1987, judgment adjudging Dakota Cheese to be in contempt for failing to produce certain invoices as required by the district court’s earlier order. We affirm.
On March 3, 1989, we affirmed the district court’s contempt order.
See Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum v. United States, 868 F.2d 1014 (8th Cir.1989). On November 29, 1988, a jury found Dakota Cheese and its president, James Dee, guilty of certain criminal charges arising from the sale of cheese products to the United States Department of Agriculture. We affirmed those convictions on June 13, 1990.
See United States v. Dakota Cheese, Inc., 906 F.2d 335 (8th Cir.1990).
On May 11, 1989, Dakota Cheese filed a motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) for relief from the judgment of contempt. In its offer of proof in support of the motion, Dakota Cheese represented that on November 10, 1988, shortly before the commencement of the trial on the criminal charges, its trial counsel discovered in the office of one of Dakota Cheese’s former attorneys the invoices that Dakota Cheese had failed to produce in response to the district court’s order of production and which formed the basis of the judgment of contempt. The offer of proof represented that the discovery of these documents came as a complete surprise to James Dee and to trial counsel.
After considering the offer of proof and after observing that the evidence at the criminal trial indicated that Dee had given the invoices to his former counsel with some suggestion that they be destroyed, the district court concluded that the interests of justice did not require that the $115,000 fine imposed pursuant to the judgment of contempt be set aside, in whole or in part.
Although Dakota Cheese characterizes its motion as one brought pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) — the catchall provision authorizing the granting of relief for “any other reason justifying relief” from a judgment — we agree with the government that the motion was in effect one based upon newly discovered evidence — Rule 60(b)(2)— and, as such, was untimely because not made within the one-year time limit fixed for the making of such motions.
See 11 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2866, pp. 232-34 (1973).
We recognize that our affirmance is based upon a ground other than that relied upon by the district court. It is a ground that finds support in the record, however, and was urged by the government before the district court and again on appeal. Accordingly, we perceive no special circumstances that would militate against our relying on it as the basis of affirmance on appeal.
Brown v. St. Louis Police Dep’t, 691 F.2d 393, 396-97 (8th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 908 , 103 S.Ct. 1882 , 76 L.Ed.2d 812 (1983).
The district court’s order is affirmed.
1
. The Honorable John B. Jones, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(interpreting a Rule 60(b) motion based upon its substance and not the subsection asserted by the movant)
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Gassler v. State
- Kieffer v. Riske (In re Kieffer-Mickes, Inc.)
- Jeffrey P. Schultz v. Commerce First Financial, as the Successor-In-Interest to and for Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
- United States v. James Mosbrucker
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Financial Warfare Club, Inc.
- United States v. James J. Mosbrucker Margaret Mosbrucker State of North Dakota Peter Hulm S & M Company J and S Mobil Homes Service, Inc., a Corporation Robert F. Holt, Doing Business as Credit Adjusters, Inc. Mandan Community Center Ray Hoffman Terry Gimbel Melvin Jahner Community Credit Union, of Bismarck United Accounts, Inc., a Corporation Ed Van Beek Gray Oil Company, a Corporation Mack & Associates, Inc., a Corporation Dakota Credit, Inc., a Corporation John Sullivan, Doing Business as Cannonball Ranch James Massett Northwest Tire, Inc., a Corporation Security State Bank, of New Salem Bank Center First Roger Hatzenbuehler, United States of America v
Most recent
- Pioneer Civil Construction, LLC v. Ingevity Arkansas, LLC
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Financial Warfare Club, Inc.
- Gassler v. State
- United States v. James J. Mosbrucker Margaret Mosbrucker State of North Dakota Peter Hulm S & M Company J and S Mobil Homes Service, Inc., a Corporation Robert F. Holt, Doing Business as Credit Adjusters, Inc. Mandan Community Center Ray Hoffman Terry Gimbel Melvin Jahner Community Credit Union, of Bismarck United Accounts, Inc., a Corporation Ed Van Beek Gray Oil Company, a Corporation Mack & Associates, Inc., a Corporation Dakota Credit, Inc., a Corporation John Sullivan, Doing Business as Cannonball Ranch James Massett Northwest Tire, Inc., a Corporation Security State Bank, of New Salem Bank Center First Roger Hatzenbuehler, United States of America v
- United States v. James Mosbrucker
- Kieffer v. Riske (In re Kieffer-Mickes, Inc.)
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.