Sweidy v. Spring Ridge Academy et al

Filing 387

ORDER that Defendants' Motion for a New Trial (Doc. 318 ) pursuant to Rule 59(a) is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because a new trial has been granted, the following pending motions shall all be denied as moot: the Motion for Attorney Fees (Doc. 292 ), Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Doc. 318 ), Motion to Correct Clerical Mistake (Doc. 318 ), and Motion for Judgment on Taxation of Costs (Doc. 350 ). Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 1/8/25. (MJW)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

Kimberly Sweidy,

9
10

Plaintiff,
vs.

11
12

Spring Ridge Academy, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-21-08013-PCT-SPL
ORDER

15

Before the Court is Defendants Spring Ridge Academy and Kate Deily’s Motion for

16

a New Trial (Doc. 318), Defendants’ Supplemental Brief Re: Motion for New Trial Based

17

on Verdict Tainted by Extraneous Prejudicial Information (Doc. 376; sealed and

18

unredacted at Doc. 380), and Plaintiff Kimberly Sweidy’s Response (Doc. 382; sealed and

19

unredacted at Doc. 386).1 The Court now rules as follows.

20

I.

BACKGROUND

21

On June 14, 2024, a verdict was entered in favor of Plaintiff Kimberly R. Sweidy

22

(“Plaintiff”) following a three-week jury trial against Defendants Spring Ridge Academy,

23

et al. (“Defendants”). (Doc. 275). The next day, on June 15, 2024, an alleged juror with the

24

username “Brilliant-Truth-1635” posted in a Reddit forum entitled “Troubled Teens,”

25

writing, “I am proud to say I was part of the jury!” (Doc. 301-7 at 5). Reddit is a social

26
27
28

1

Other ripe and currently pending motions in the case include a Motion for Attorney
Fees (Doc. 292), Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Doc. 318), Motion to Correct
Clerical Mistake (Doc. 318), and Motion for Judgment on Taxation of Costs (Doc. 350).

1

networking website divided into topic-based discussion forums, also called “subreddits,”

2

where users can discuss news, share content, or comment on others’ posts.2 “Troubled

3

Teens” is one such subreddit, and it included various discussion threads regarding

4

Defendant Spring Ridge Academy and the instant litigation. (See Docs. 301-3, 301-4, 301-

5

7).

6

Because the Reddit comment made by “Brilliant-Truth-1635” was posted only a day

7

after the verdict was announced, Defendants Spring Ridge Academy and Kate Deily filed

8

a Motion to Interview the Jurors (Doc. 301) on July 1, 2024, asking for the Court’s leave

9

to interview the jurors from the Sweidy trial to determine whether any of the trial jurors

10

were improperly exposed to extraneous prejudicial information during their deliberations.

11

(Doc. 301 at 2). On July 12, Defendants moved for leave to file a third-party subpoena on

12

Reddit in order to obtain more information about whether the Reddit poster visited the

13

website before or during the trial. (Doc. 315).

14

The Reddit subpoena ultimately revealed that the user Brilliant-Truth-1635 did not

15

register their account until June 15, 2024, the day after the verdict was delivered. (Doc.

16

357 at 2). However, an IP Address associated with Brilliant-Truth-1635 first accessed the

17

Reddit website on June 13, 2024 at 23:50:23 UTC (which would be 4:50 p.m. Arizona

18

time), the day before the jury verdict was issued. (Id.). An email address associated with

19

the user Brilliant-Truth-1635 suggested that the account may have been created by a juror

20

in the matter, whom this Court will refer to as “Juror Number 3” for purposes of privacy.

21

(Doc. 357 at 2).

22

In their Motion to Interview Jurors (Doc. 301), Defendants argued:

23

The link between a self-identified trial juror, Plaintiff, and a
subreddit deeply connected to this case suggests that a juror
was exposed to extraneous prejudicial information or outside
influence. That subreddit contained disparaging comments
about Spring Ridge Academy -- including some from Plaintiff
-- and discussed specific factual allegations in a way that likely

24
25
26
27
28

2

See Jake Widman, What is Reddit?, Digital Trends Media Group (Dec. 28, 2022),
https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/what-is-reddit/.

2

would have prejudiced any juror against Defendants.

1
2

(Doc. 301 at 5). Indeed, this Court’s Final Jury Instructions, which were issued to all the

3

jurors in this case, admonished that any “juror who violates these restrictions,” including a

4

specific restriction against “searching the Internet” about the case, “jeopardizes the fairness

5

of these proceedings, and a mistrial could result that would require the entire trial process

6

to start over.” (Doc. 276 at 10). “Juror testimony . . . is potentially the only evidence of

7

some instances of juror misconduct.” Carlson v. Thornell, 2024 WL 3653058, at *3 (D.

8

Ariz. Aug. 5, 2024). The Court therefore granted Defendants’ Motion to Interview Jurors

9

as to one juror and subpoenaed Juror Number 3 for questioning in a closed hearing that

10

took place on November 7, 2024. (Doc. 363; ME 366).

11

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

12

“The Constitution guarantees both criminal and civil litigants a right to an impartial

13

jury.” Warger v. Shauers, 574 U.S. 40, 50 (2014). Therefore, upon learning of juror

14

misconduct, the trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the nature of the

15

extraneous information. United States v. Bagnariol, 665 F.2d 877, 885 (9th Cir. 1981). A

16

trial judge is “uniquely qualified to appraise the probable effect of information on the jury,

17

the materiality of the extraneous material, and its prejudicial nature,” because he “observes

18

the jurors throughout the trial, is aware of the defenses asserted, and has heard the

19

evidence.” Id. Therefore, a judge’s conclusion about the effect of alleged juror misconduct

20

“deserves substantial weight.” Id. Ninth Circuit case law also puts substantial weight on

21

the nature of the extraneous information when determining the possibility that the

22

information may have affected the verdict. Sassounian v. Roe, 230 F.3d 1097, 1109 (9th

23

Cir. 2000), as amended on denial of reh’g (Dec. 6, 2000).

24

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 59(a)(1) broadly authorizes the Court to

25

grant a new trial, upon motion, “for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been

26

granted in an action at law in federal court.” Ultimately, trial judges retain “broad

27

discretion” whether to grant a mistrial, and every case is highly fact dependent. United

28

States v. Cervantes, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86949, *6 (N.D. Cal. July 5, 2016) (citing
3

1

Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766, 774 (2010)). Trial judges may declare a mistrial “whenever,

2

in their opinion, taking all the circumstances into consideration, there is a manifest

3

necessity for doing so. The . . . power ought to be used with the greatest caution, under

4

urgent circumstances, and for very plain and obvious causes.” Renico, 559 U.S. at 773–74

5

(internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

6

Although precedents regarding the introduction of extraneous information to a jury

7

“are mostly in criminal cases,” the Ninth Circuit has generally “applied the same rules in

8

civil cases. Where extraneous information is imparted, as when papers bearing on the facts

9

get into the jury room without having been admitted as exhibits, or when a juror looks

10

things up in a dictionary or directory, the burden is generally on the party opposing a new

11

trial to demonstrate the absence of prejudice, and a new trial is ordinarily granted if there

12

is a reasonable possibility that the material could have affected the verdict.” Sea Hawk

13

Seafoods, Inc. v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 206 F.3d 900, 906 (9th Cir. 2000).

14

III.

DISCUSSION

15

Defendants argue that in the instant case, “[a]t least one juror was exposed during

16

deliberations to extraneous prejudicial information about Spring Ridge . . . . That exposure

17

creates a reasonable probability that it could have affected the verdict, warranting a new

18

trial” under Rule 59. (Doc. 380 at 26). Plaintiff asks the Court to deny the Rule 59 Motion,

19

arguing that “[t]here is no evidence that anything improper transpired.” (Doc. 382 at 2).

20

Plaintiff’s Supplemental Brief focuses unnecessary attention on various issues that

21

do not concern this Court. For example, this Court does not insinuate, and has never

22

insinuated, that Ms. Sweidy acted improperly when she herself posted on the “Troubled

23

Teens Industry (TTI) subreddit of Reddit.” (Doc. 382 at 2). More importantly, the Court

24

agrees that “[p]osts made after the Jury Verdict is rendered are not” inherently “suspect”

25

(id.), and that “[g]ranting a new trial for every juror accessing social media after a trial for

26

the purpose of reading about the defendants is a very slippery slope” (id. at 6). But the

27

Court’s concern today is not about Juror Number Three’s, or any jurors’, social media

28

activities following the conclusion of trial; nor is the Court’s concern about Plaintiff’s
4

1

social media activities, for that matter. The Court’s concern lies solely with Juror Number

2

Three’s activities during deliberations.

3

To start, Plaintiff argues that the Brilliant-Truth-1635 post that was made the day

4

after the jury verdict was “not cause for further investigation, much less probable cause for

5

this Court to indulge and enable what has transpired since the filing of Defendants’ Motion

6

to Interview Jury . . . .” (Id. at 2). The Court need not rehash its reasoning for granting the

7

Motion to Interview as well as the Motion to Subpoena Reddit; suffice to say the Motions

8

were granted for good cause; the subpoena was issued; the interview was conducted. What

9

the Court must contemplate now is the information that the subpoena and the interview

10

revealed.

11

The crux of the issue is that the Reddit subpoena revealed that the IP Address

12

associated with Juror Number 3 accessed the Reddit website on June 13, 2024, at 23:50:23

13

UTC (4:50 p.m. Arizona time), the evening before the jury verdict was issued. (Doc. 357

14

at 2). The following table chronicles the relevant events:

15
16

Date

Time (Arizona Time) Event

June 13, 2024 4:30 p.m.

17
18
19

the trial. (ME 268).
June 13, 2024 4:50 p.m.

“tracking cookie” attaches to this user. (Doc.

21

380 at 30).

22
June 14, 2024 11:06 a.m.

26
27
28

Following continued deliberations, jury reaches
a verdict on Day 12 of trial. (ME 273).

24
25

Juror Number 3 allegedly accesses the Reddit
website for the first time. A unique Reddit

20

23

Jury excused from deliberations on Day 11 of

June 14, 2024 11:39 a.m.

Trial concludes; Court is adjourned. (ME 273).

June 15, 2024 8:49 p.m.

Juror Number 3 returns to Reddit and registers
an account with the username “Brilliant-Truth1635,” (Doc. 380 at 30), from which Juror

5

1

Number 3 posts in the Troubled Teens subreddit

2

multiple times. (Id. at 27–28).

3

During the closed juror interview hearing that took place on November 7, 2024,

4

Juror Number 3 confirmed, under oath, that they were indeed the person who posted to

5

Reddit that “I am proud to say I was part of the jury” on June 15, 2024. (Doc. 381 at 7).

6

However, a troubling factual dispute and potential credibility issue arose when Juror

7

Number 3 subsequently testified that they did not “access Reddit any time prior to the

8

verdict being read in this case.” (Id.).

9

Plaintiff repeatedly and vehemently emphasizes the important distinction between

10

the Reddit website, broadly, and the specific Troubled Teens subreddit where Juror

11

Number 3 posted. (Doc. 382 at 4; Doc. 381 at 10). It is true that merely accessing the Reddit

12

website during the trial would not necessarily constitute a violation of this Court’s

13

admonishment against searching the Internet regarding this case. (Doc. 382 at 4). It is also

14

true that the only information the Reddit subpoena reveals is that Juror Number 3 appears

15

to have accessed Reddit on June 13, but not whether the Juror specifically accessed the

16

Troubled Teens subreddit, or any other subreddit that might include information that would

17

be prejudicial in this case.

18

However, Juror Number 3 did not merely deny accessing the Troubled Teens

19

subreddit on June 13—Juror Number 3 denied accessing the Reddit website at all on June

20

13, in plain contradiction to the subpoenaed Reddit logs. (Doc. 381 at 7; Doc. 357 at 2).

21

Subsequently, the Juror “absolutely” recalled that the date that they first accessed Reddit

22

to sign up was “[t]he day that the verdict was given,” which was the afternoon of June 14.

23

(Doc. 381 at 8–9). However, the Reddit subpoena clearly revealed that the day Juror

24

Number 3 created an account was on June 15, and there is no indication that the unique IP

25

Address associated with Juror Number 3 accessed Reddit at any time on June 14. Based on

26

its observation of Juror Number 3’s testimony, the Court found the Juror to be severely

27

lacking in credibility.

28

There is still a good deal of information the Court does not know. If Juror Number
6

1

3 indeed accessed Reddit on June 13, while deliberations were ongoing—and the Court

2

suspects that Juror Number 3 did—it still does not know whether the Juror specifically

3

accessed the Troubled Teens subreddit, what kind of posts they saw, and whether those

4

posts had any bearing on their, or any other juror’s, deliberations. The Court is satisfied

5

that if the Troubled Teens subreddit was accessed, there is much more than a “reasonable

6

possibility that the material could have affected the verdict.” Sea Hawk Seafoods, 206 F.3d

7

at 906. But the Court is in the difficult position of having to decide whether it believes

8

Juror Number 3 indeed accessed extraneous prejudicial information based on little more

9

than the Juror’s assertion that they did not and a Reddit log suggesting that they may have.

10

Common sense suggests that there would be little reason for Juror Number 3 to

11

access Reddit on June 13—a mere two days before registering an account for the sole

12

purpose of commenting about their participation in the jury—unless to look up potentially

13

prejudicial information on the case and parties at hand. After all, this Court is well aware

14

that the “troubled teen industry” to which this case pertains has received ample media

15

discussion over recent years, and a juror could easily be tempted by the notion that a simple

16

Google search of one of the parties’ names could, in an instant, fetch hundreds of

17

incendiary articles on the topic. It is nonetheless surprising and disheartening that a juror’s

18

actions on social media could cast into question the fairness of an entire trial.

19

Fairness is the determinative consideration in the Court’s decision today. At bottom,

20

the Court has a duty to all parties, and more importantly, a duty to the public to ensure fair

21

and impartial jury proceedings. When information comes to light that threatens to upend

22

the fairness of those proceedings, the Court cannot simply ignore it. Jury trials are

23

financially taxing on all parties involved, from the parties bearing the attorneys’ fees to the

24

taxpayers bearing the cost of administration; they are often emotionally taxing as well,

25

particularly in a case like this one, which involved sensitive testimony from numerous

26

alleged victims. The Court is keenly aware of the costs, tangible and intangible, of

27

upending a $2.5-million verdict that was obtained through a grueling three-week trial.

28

However, prudential concerns must give way to Constitutional ones.
7

1

Here, the “possibilities are too great” that the jury may have been exposed to

2

prejudicial outside information. See United States v. Vasquez, 597 F.2d 192, 194 (9th Cir.

3

1979). The Court must therefore exercise its discretion to declare that a mistrial has

4

occurred.

5

Accordingly,

6

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for a New Trial (Doc. 318) pursuant to

7

Rule 59(a) is granted.

8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because a new trial has been granted, the

9

following pending motions shall all be denied as moot: the Motion for Attorney Fees (Doc.

10

292), Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Doc. 318), Motion to Correct Clerical

11

Mistake (Doc. 318), and Motion for Judgment on Taxation of Costs (Doc. 350).

12

Dated this 8th day of January, 2025.

13
14
Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8