Shukla v. Deloitte Consulting LLP

Background

The court had previously instructed Shukla, who was representing himself, to challenge rulings only through specified procedures: a motion for reconsideration, an objection to Judge Aaron’s orders, or an appeal of an appealable order. The court also instructed him to use letters only for procedural or administrative matters and not for legal arguments, factual allegations supporting his claims, unsupported accusations of bias, or factual assertions lacking evidentiary support.

The court said Shukla continued to submit excessive and improper filings despite those instructions. The filings addressed the court’s earlier denial of his letter motion to reopen, made accusations against the court and court employees, sought referral to a three-judge panel under 28 U.S.C. § 2284, sought relief from the court’s opinion adopting Judge Aaron’s Report and Recommendation, and sought to vacate Judge Aaron’s discovery order.

Rulings

The court denied the motion requesting referral to a three-judge panel, calling it meritless. It also denied Shukla’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) and 60(b) to vacate the court’s earlier opinion. The court explained that Rule 60(a) concerns clerical mistakes or mistakes from oversight or omission, while Rule 60(b) provides extraordinary relief from a final judgment or order on specified grounds. The court concluded that the motion mostly repeated arguments Shukla had already made and did not meet the requirements for relief under either provision.

The court construed Shukla’s motion to vacate Judge Aaron’s discovery order as an objection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). It overruled the objection, finding it frivolous. The court also stated that the filing contained unsupported accusations of bias.

The court warned that Shukla had to comply with court orders and filing instructions or face sanctions, which could include dismissal under Rule 41(b). It certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied status allowing an appeal without prepaying filing costs. The order resolved Docket Nos. 270, 279, 281, and 285. It did not dismiss the case in this order.

Classification

This is a procedural order. The court ruled on filing practices, requests to vacate earlier rulings, a discovery objection, possible sanctions, and appeal-related filing-cost status. It did not decide the underlying legal claims against Deloitte in this order.