ORDER

JAMES C. FOX, Senior District Judge.

This matter is before the court on the following motions by Plaintiff: (1) Motion to Vacate Judgment for Defendants' Misconduct [DE-176], (2) Motion to Accept Affidavit as Timely Filed [DE-179], (3) Motion for Sanctions [DE-187], and (4) Motion to Stay [DE-186]. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs motions to vacate, to stay, and for sanctions are DENIED, and Plaintiffs motion to accept affidavit is ALLOWED.

I. BACKGROUND

On July 20, 2015, the court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment in this action and ordered the case closed., [DE-173]. On the same day, Plaintiff moved to vacate the judgment.1 On September 6, 2016, Plaintiff notified the court of her intention to seek sanctions against Defendants and moved to stay these proceedings until Defendants responded to her sanctions motion. [DE-186].2 On October 4, 2016, Plaintiff moved for sanctions against Defendants pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [DE-187].3

II. MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT

Plaintiff argues that Defendant Wake County improperly withheld a description of three guards' duties, despite having been ordered to produce the information on May 14, 2015.4 Despite the court's order, Plaintiff contends that Wake County failed to provide the requested information until July 16, 2015.5

Rule 60(b) allows the court to "relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for ... fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3). To prevail, a movant under Rule 60(b) must establish three factors: (1) the existence of a meritorious claim or defense; (2) misconduct, proven by clear and convincing evidence; and (3) the misconduct prevented the movant from fully presenting its case. Square Constr. Co. v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 657 F.2d 68, 71 (4th Cir. 1981). If the movant proves these three elements, the court then "must balance the competing policies favoring the finality of judgments and justice being done in view of all the facts, to determine within its discretion, whether relief is appropriate in each case." Schultz v. Butcher, 24 F.3d 626, 630 (4th Cir. 1994) (quoting Square Constr. Co., 657 F.2d at 71).

Here, even assuming the truth of Plaintiff's factual allegations, she cannot prevail because she fails to establish the existence of a meritorious claim. The court granted summary judgment in Defendants' favor because Plaintiff failed to present evidence of deliberate indifference. See Order of July 20, 2015 [DE-173] ("Here, there is no record evidence that any guard subjectively believed that Plaintiff was suffering from an objectively serious condition."). The allegedly withheld information—a description of the guards' duties—would not alter the court's analysis on this issue. Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion to vacate is DENIED.

III. MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Plaintiff moves for sanctions against Wake County, arguing that in addition to withholding the description of the guards' duties, Wake County violated Rule 11:

Mem. Supp. Sanctions [DE-192] at 3-4.

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that by submitting a pleading, an attorney "certifies that to the best of [his] knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances" that his "claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law," and his "factual contentions have evidentiary support or ... will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery." Violation of Rule 11(b) may lead to sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1).

Under Fourth Circuit law, "maintaining a legal position to a court is only sanctionable when, in applying a standard of objective reasonableness, it can be said that a reasonable attorney in like circumstances could not have believed his actions to be legally justified." McNeill v. Melvin, No. 5:12-CT-3169-FL, 2014 WL 4701592, at *3 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 22, 2014) (quoting Hunter v. Earthgrains Co. Bakery, 281 F.3d 144, 153 (4th Cir. 2002)). As Wake County has prevailed in this matter, its legal arguments can hardly be called unreasonable.

As for Wake County's failure to timely produce the guards' identity information, the court finds this allegation—undisputed by Wake County—troubling. There is little excuse for failure to comply with the court's clear and direct order. Nonetheless, the court does not find Wake County's actions sanctionable, as Plaintiff could have and should have pursued this matter prior to entry of summary judgment.6 Instead, she chose to respond to Defendants' motion for summary judgment without the benefit of the withheld information. The court will not issue sanctions against Wake County now, when Plaintiff failed to pursue the matter while the litigation was pending.7

The court perceives no basis on which to impose sanctions against Wake County.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is ordered as follows:

SO ORDERED.