For anyone who want to refresh memory about what led up to this, the files are at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/hk/hkhenson/rule60/ You might also want to open the Cipriano declaration which is at: http://www.lermanet.com/reference/cipriano.htm The order is interesting both for what is not in it as well as what is. Keith Henson IN THE UN1TED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, NO. C-96-20271-RMW Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM V. JUDGMENT H. KEITH HENSON, Defendant. [Re: Docket No.534] Defendant's motion for relief from the judgment pursuant to Rules 60(b)(3) and 6()(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court's inherent powers was submitted to the court without oral argument on May 5, 2000. The court has read the moving and responding papers. The basis for defendant's motion is alleged fraud on the court. More specifically, defendant alleges that a campaign of spying and harassment by the Church of Scientology was directed against himself and his one-time attorney, Graham Berry. Defendant argues that this campaign was designed to "deprive the court of the best efforts of its officer's counsel. [Scientologyl attempted, and to some extent succeeded, in usurping the court's legitimate decision-making authority by exerting improper influence over one of its officers." Mot. at 5:3, 5:6-8. The court is not persuaded that relief from the judgment is warranted. The motion is based largely on the Declaration of Robert J. Cipriano (Exhibit A to Defendant's Motion). Cipriano recounts a bizarre series of meetings with Eugene Ingram, a one-time private investigator for the Church of Scientology, during which Ingram allegedly employed a combination of threats and promises to secure Cipriano's assistance in a campaign of harassment against Church opponents. Cipriano claims that the Church widely disseminated a false declaration regarding attorney Berry's personal life that he had signed under duress. (Cipriano Ded. 20.) Cipriano also states that Ingram admitted that he "had a spy" in attorney Berry's office. (Id. 23.) While these allegations are colorful, they have little to do with the facts of this particular case. Even if an investigator once affiliated with Scientology admitted to Cipriano that he had been spying on attorney Berry, it is entirely unclear how that would relate to the validity of the judgement in this case. (1) In any event, Rule 60(b)(3) relief is not available in this case because more than one year has elapsed since the entry ofjudgment. Nor is this the exceptional case warranting relief under Rule 60(b)(6) or the court's inherent powers. See United States v. Washington, 98 F.3d 1159 1 l()3 ~ Cir. 1996) (relief under rule 60(1,)(6) proper only under "extraordinary circumstances"). Defendant's motion for relief from the judgment is denied. The court denies plaintiff counter-motion for sanctions. (2) DATED:____5/11/2000__________ RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge 1. As the court has reminded defendant before, this case for copyright infringement does not turn on the merits of Scientology as a belief system or the conduct of the Church's members 2. Plaintiff did not notice a motion for sanctions, but included a request for sanctions in the text of its opposition. For that reason alone the court must deny the request for sanctions. See Fed. l~ Civ. P.1 l(c)(l)(A) ("A motion for sanctions under this rule shall be made separately from other motions or requests and shall describe the specific conduct alleged to violate subdivision (1,)."); (~iv. L.R 11-8(1,) (requiring that all motions for sanctions, including Section 1927 sanctions, be properly noticed). In addition, as plaintiff itself admits, plaintiff failed to comply with the 21-day safe harbor provision of Rule 11; the court declines plaintiffs invitation to impose sanctions "on its own initiative."