Shukla v. Deloitte Consulting LLP

Background

Shukla filed a document titled a “Motion for Reconsideration” challenging Magistrate Judge Aaron’s order denying an earlier reconsideration motion. That earlier motion concerned an order in which Judge Aaron denied Shukla’s request to vacate the partial dismissal of his second amended complaint and to have Judge Aaron recuse himself. Judge Aaron denied the earlier reconsideration motion as untimely and otherwise lacking merit.

Shukla also filed a motion to seal exhibits. He later explained that his filing was intended for Judge Nathan and that the reference to Judge Aaron was an error. The court construed the filing as an objection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), which permits a district judge to modify or set aside a magistrate judge’s nondispositive order if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Ruling on the Objection

The court denied the objection. Rule 72(a) required Shukla to object within 14 days, but he filed the objection 72 days after Judge Aaron issued the challenged order. The court therefore found the objection untimely.

The court also held that the objection would fail on the merits even if it had been timely. It concluded that Judge Aaron correctly denied reconsideration because Shukla repeated earlier arguments and did not identify an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or clear error. The court noted that reconsideration is not a way to relitigate old issues or obtain another hearing on the merits.

The court added that even if Judge Aaron’s order had been treated as a dispositive order reviewed under a different rule, the result would have been the same because that type of objection also had to be filed within 14 days and Judge Aaron’s decision was correct.

Sealing Request and Disposition

The court granted Shukla’s request to seal Exhibit B, identified as Dkt. No. 210-3, because of privacy concerns. It denied the request as to the remaining documents, which the court found did not raise the same concerns. The order states that the request to seal Dkt. Nos. 210-2 and 210-4 was withdrawn.

The order construed Shukla’s reconsideration motion as a Rule 72(a) objection and denied that objection. It granted the request to seal in part as to Dkt. No. 210-3 and otherwise denied the request. The court also found under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith.