IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

JASON SCOTT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 10-929 (JLH) ) UPS SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

At Wilmington, this 4th day of November, 2025, having received Plaintiff Jason Scott’s pro se motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) (D.I. 88), motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(d)(3) (D.I. 89), and motion for appointment of counsel (D.I. 100), as well as Defendant UPS Supply Chain Solutions’ motion for leave to file a sur-reply in response to Plaintiff’s motions for relief from judgment (D.I. 95) and Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s sur-reply or, alternatively, for leave to file a limited response (D.I. 103); WHEREAS, summary judgment was granted against Plaintiff in 2012 and the Third Circuit issued a mandate in 2014; WHEREAS, a motion for relief from final order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), “must be made within a reasonable time,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1), and it must be based on one of five specified grounds, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(5), or “extraordinary circumstances,” Martinez-McBean v. Gov’t of Virgin Islands,

(3d Cir. 1977); WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s pending Rule 60 motions—filed in 2025—are untimely and factually and legally baseless, as the motions are premised on the erroneous assertion that there was a “proposed Stipulated Confidentiality Order” supposedly entered by the Court; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) (D.I. 88) is DENIED. 2. Plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(d)(3) (DI. 89) is DENIED. 3. Defendant’s motion for leave to file a sur-reply in response to Plaintiff's motions for relief from judgment (D.I. 95) is DENIED. Plaintiff's motion to strike Defendant’s sur-reply (D.I. 103) is DENIED as moot. 4. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (D.I. 100) is DENIED.

United St istrict Judge