Nguyen v. DeJoy

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
QUANG D. NGUYEN, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-22-1102-D
)
LOUIS DeJOY, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s Notice of Suspected Fraud Committed Upon the
Court and Motion for a Stay of Proceedings [Doc. No. 67]. In it, Defendant discloses that
Plaintiff has submitted false and fraudulent statements to the Court in support of his claims.
Specifically, Defendant alleges that, for several of Plaintiff’s witness statements, “the
substantive content of the statements has often proven to be untrue or unknowable by the
named witness” and “the named witnesses neither signed nor ratified the statements.” [Doc.
No. 67, at 1]. Defendant further notifies the Court that “some of these witnesses believe
that their signature was photocopied from other documents and then applied to the
purported witness’s statement.” Id. For these reasons, Defendant requests a 90-day stay of
these proceedings, subject only to allowing Defendant to seek limited discovery as to
fabricated and/or wrongfully obtained evidence in this case.
In his response [Doc. No. 69], Plaintiff contends that the witness statements attached
to previous filings are truthful and that he “always keep[s] the original witness statement
with the witness’s original signature.” [Doc. No. 69, at 1]. However, Plaintiff further
Case 5:22-cv-01102-D Document 74 Filed 12/11/24 Page 1 of 3

2
explains that he “never publicly shows or uses any of these witness statements,” and that
he “still preserves most of the original statements and declarations from [his] witnesses”
and will present the originals to the Court as necessary. Id. at 2. These statements are
enough to cast doubt on the authenticity of the witness statements that have already been
filed by Plaintiff in this matter.
Defendant filed a reply in support of his motion for a stay of proceedings [Doc. No.
71]. In his reply, Defendant provides an example of one witness, Janice Pickup, who “flatly
denies having any part in creating or signing two statements attributed to her and filed in
this case, and who believes her signature was forged.” Id. at 1. Defendant adds that this is
not the only example of Plaintiff’s purported witnesses denying either giving or ratifying
statements attributed to them. Id.
Plaintiff has filed a sur-reply [Doc. No. 73], which is hereby STRICKEN. Pursuant
to LCvR7.1(i), supplemental briefing such as sur-replies “may be filed only upon motion
and leave of Court.”
Although Plaintiff denies Defendant’s allegations of fabricated and/or forged
witness statements, at other times he seems to indicate that the witness statements at issue
are not in the public record and that he will provide the Court with original witness
statements at a later date. It is clear that Plaintiff does not appreciate the seriousness of
Defendant’s allegations related to the statements already filed in this matter. Courts have
issued serious sanctions, such as dismissal, for far less serious offenses. Due to the gravity
of Defendant’s allegations, and because the Court believes it would be unfair for the parties
to expend additional resources on Plaintiff’s underlying claims before seeking discovery
Case 5:22-cv-01102-D Document 74 Filed 12/11/24 Page 2 of 3

3
into Plaintiff’s alleged fraud on the Court, the Court will GRANT Defendant’s motion for
a 90-day stay of proceedings.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that these proceedings are STAYED for a period
of 90 days from the date of this Order, subject only to Defendant seeking limited discovery
as to fabricated and/or wrongfully obtained evidence in this case. Plaintiff is directed to
comply with discovery into this limited issue. Upon expiration of the stay, the parties may
request that the Court issue a revised scheduling order for the unexpired scheduling order
deadlines.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s sur-reply [Doc. No. 73], filed
without leave of Court, is STRICKEN.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of December, 2024.
TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge
Case 5:22-cv-01102-D Document 74 Filed 12/11/24 Page 3 of 3