Ogden v. CDI Corporation

Filing 144

ORDER denying 143 Plaintiff's Motion for relief from order. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 4/22/11.(LSP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

7
8

Martin Ogden,

9

Plaintiff,

10

vs.

11

CDI Corporation,

12

Defendant.

13
14
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV08-2180 PHX DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff Martin Ogden has filed a motion for relief from judgment. Doc. 143. The
Court will deny the motion.

16

Plaintiff cites statements allegedly made by jurors in the hallway after his trial as

17

evidence that the jurors lacked “the cognitive aptitude” to understand the issues in this case

18

and “violated their oath” by failing to base their decision on evidence presented during the

19

trial. Id. at 4. The statements quoted by Plaintiff do not suggest that there was extraneous

20

information considered by the jury, that there was any outside influence brought to bear on

21

the jury, or that the jurors’ verdict was incorrectly recorded. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 606(b). The

22

statements instead purport to reflect the jurors’ thinking in arriving at their defense verdict.

23

Statements concerning the thoughts and deliberations of jurors cannot be considered

24

by the Court in granting relief from the verdict. “Rule 606(b) of the Federal Rules of

25

Evidence makes clear . . . that jurors may not be asked to ‘testify as to any matter or

26

statement occurring during the course of the jury’s deliberation or to the effect of anything

27

upon that or any other juror’s mind or emotions as influencing the juror to assent to or dissent

28

from the verdict[.]’” Wilson v. Maricopa County, No. CV-04-2873-PHX-DGC, 2007 WL

1

1992091 at *4 (D. Ariz. July 5, 2007). This rule draws “a dividing line between inquiry into

2

the thought processes of the jurors on the one hand, and inquiry into the existence of

3

conditions or the occurrence of events calculated to exert an improper influence on the

4

verdict, on the other.” Vol. 3, J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein’s Federal Evidence,

5

§ 606.04[1][a] (Matthew Bender 2d ed.2008). Because Plaintiff’s motion focuses solely on

6

the thought processes of the jurors, it will be denied.

7

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for relief from order (Doc. 143) is denied.

8

DATED this 22nd day of April, 2011.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-