Thomas v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
- Tony Leung
- 0:19-cv-00482
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Thomas v. Wells Fargo, Judge Leung denied Stella Thomas’s request for permission to seek reconsideration of earlier discovery orders.
Stella Thomas and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; Thomas’s request for permission to seek reconsideration was denied, and the prior consistent orders remained in effect.
What happened
In Thomas v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Stella Thomas, who represented herself, asked for permission to file a motion asking the court to reconsider two earlier orders about her discovery requests and request for oral argument.
Thomas argued that emails, LinkedIn profiles, and other documents showed Wells Fargo had falsely described differences between certain job roles. The court said the materials were not newly discovered, and that it had already considered the relevant evidence. It also said the main reason it denied her discovery motion was that the requests were filed too late.
The court denied Thomas’s request for permission to seek reconsideration and left the earlier consistent orders in effect. Judge Tony N. Leung also stated that violations of the order or earlier orders could lead to appropriate remedies or sanctions.
The detailed version
- Thomas v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · No. 0:19-cv-00482
- Tony Leung
- Oct. 12, 2021
Background
Stella Thomas, representing herself, asked for permission to file a motion for reconsideration of two September 9, 2021 orders: one denying her motion to compel discovery and another denying her motion for oral argument on that discovery motion. Under the District of Minnesota’s local rules, a party must obtain the court’s permission before filing a motion for reconsideration and must show compelling circumstances.
Arguments and Analysis
Thomas argued that the evidence attached to her request—including emails, LinkedIn profiles, and other documents—showed that Wells Fargo had falsely described the differences between Credit Analyst I and Underwriter I and II roles. She also argued that oral argument would help the court evaluate those issues and ensure that its ruling was not based on false testimony.
The court applied the standard that reconsideration is limited to correcting a clear legal or factual error or considering newly discovered evidence. It found that Thomas had not shown compelling circumstances. The attachments were not newly discovered and appeared largely similar to materials she had previously submitted. The court also said it had already considered the declaration and documents at issue. It explained that the primary reason for denying Thomas’s motion to compel was that her discovery requests were untimely. Only after reaching that conclusion did the court address whether the job roles were substantially similar, and it stated that the motion would still have been denied even if the requests had been timely.
Ruling and Effect
Judge Tony N. Leung denied Thomas’s request for leave to file a motion to reconsider. The order states that all prior consistent orders remain in effect. It also warns that failing to comply with the order or other consistent prior orders may result in remedies or sanctions, including costs, fines, attorney’s fees, limits on evidence, striking pleadings, dismissal with prejudice, or default judgment, among other possible relief.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.