Singh v. Excel Security Corp.
- Paul Crotty
- 1:14-cv-10111
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Singh v. Excel Security Corp., Judge Crotty denied without prejudice Singh’s transcript-correction motion because an appeal was pending and appellate permission was required.
Harinder Jeet Singh’s request to correct the 2018 pretrial-conference transcript was denied without prejudice; he may renew it after obtaining permission from the Second Circuit. The defendants’ response opposing some proposed changes was accepted as part of the court’s consideration of the motion.
What happened
In Singh v. Excel Security Corp., Harinder Jeet Singh asked the court to correct alleged errors in a 2018 transcript of an interim pretrial conference. The transcript had been included in the record for Singh’s pending appeal from the court’s summary judgment ruling for the defendants.
The defendants did not object to some proposed changes but opposed others because they appeared to add language supporting Singh’s arguments rather than correct clerical errors. The court explained that, while an appeal is pending, it generally may act only to help with the appeal or correct clerical mistakes. Under the applicable rule, correcting a mistake in the record during a pending appeal requires permission from the appeals court.
Judge Paul A. Crotty denied Singh’s motion without prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion. The court stated that Singh could renew the request after obtaining permission from the Second Circuit, but would need to show that the proposed changes corrected a mechanical mistake apparent from the record rather than revised statements he later believed were wrong.
The detailed version
- Singh v. Excel Security Corp. · No. 1:14-cv-10111
- Paul Crotty
- July 1, 2021
Background
Harinder Jeet Singh moved to correct alleged errors in a September 5, 2018 transcript from an interim pretrial conference. The court had previously granted summary judgment to the defendants on all of Singh’s claims in an opinion and order dated March 30, 2021. Singh appealed that ruling to the Second Circuit, and the appeal was pending when he sought to change the transcript. He had included the transcript in the electronic index for the appeal.
The defendants did not object to certain proposed changes. They objected to others because, in their view, those changes attempted to add language supporting Singh’s contentions rather than correct the transcript.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that after a proper appeal is taken, a district court generally may act only in ways that assist the appeal or correct clerical errors permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 60(a) permits correction of a clerical mistake or a mistake caused by oversight or omission in the record. But once the appeal has been docketed in the appellate court and remains pending, correcting such a mistake requires the appellate court’s permission.
The court further explained that a proper correction must concern a mechanical mistake apparent from the record. Rule 60(a) covers a situation in which the recorded statement is not what the person intended to say, write, or record. It does not cover a situation in which the person later decides that the statement itself was wrong or wishes it had been expressed differently.
Ruling
Judge Paul A. Crotty denied Singh’s motion without prejudice to renewal after Singh obtained leave from the Second Circuit. The court stated that, if Singh received permission, he should explain how each proposed correction involved a mechanical mistake or omission apparent from the record, rather than a later disagreement with what had been said. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at ECF No. 141.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.