Khan v. SAP Labs, LLC

Background

Muhammad Khan moved to alter or amend the August 30, 2022 judgment entered for SAP Labs, LLC, Sanjay Shirole, and Jenny Le. Khan had asserted discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and other unlawful treatment while employed by SAP and supervised by Shirole. The opinion states that Khan litigated the case from prison after being convicted of arson for setting fire to Shirole’s home while Shirole and his family were inside.

The court had dismissed all but one of Khan’s claims on the merits and granted summary judgment for SAP on the remaining claim. Summary judgment is a decision entered when the court concludes that the available evidence does not require a trial. The court had first granted summary judgment for SAP on May 20, 2022, but vacated that order after Khan said he had not received an adequate opportunity to oppose the motion. After considering additional late-filed submissions, the court granted summary judgment for SAP again on August 30, 2022.

Rule 59(e) motion

Khan sought reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which allows a party to ask the court to alter or amend a judgment within 28 days. The court determined that the motion was timely under the prisoner mailbox rule because Khan gave it to jail officials for mailing within the 28-day period.

The court also agreed that SAP’s opposition was filed late, but accepted it because the docket had incorrectly listed a 28-day response period instead of the 14-day period required by the local rules. The court found that SAP may have relied on that docket entry.

Khan identified 27 alleged errors. The first four concerned procedure, including the handling of an appeal, service of an earlier summary-judgment order, extensions of time, and SAP’s reply brief. The court rejected those arguments, finding no error that warranted reconsideration. The court explained that the earlier summary-judgment order had been vacated and therefore had no legal effect, and that the challenged filing and scheduling decisions were within the court’s discretion.

The remaining arguments challenged the admissibility and importance of evidence, including evidence concerning the dates of Khan’s disability leave. The court found that Khan was repeating arguments previously presented and rejected. It also stated that other evidence submitted by SAP was sufficient to meet SAP’s summary-judgment burden even if the disputed evidence were excluded. The court concluded that Khan had not shown clear error, which is the type of error required for the extraordinary remedy available under Rule 59(e).

Rule 60 motion

Khan also sought relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. Because he did not identify a specific subsection and his arguments did not fit the first five listed grounds, the court treated the request as one based on the rule’s provision for extraordinary circumstances. The court found that Khan had not shown extraordinary circumstances. It noted that it had granted repeated continuances, vacated the first summary-judgment order to consider Khan’s late submissions, and explained its substantive rulings throughout the case.

Disposition

The court denied Khan’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. It also denied his motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b). The order terminated ECF 181.