Hiramanek et al v. Clark et al

Filing 741

Order by Hon. Ronald M. Whyte Regarding Procedures for Hearing on Motion for New Trial (denying 733 Ex Parte Application). (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

ADIL HIRAMANEK, et al.,

Case No. 5:13-cv-00228-RMW

Plaintiffs,
13
v.

ORDER REGARDING PROCEDURES
FOR HEARING ON MOTION FOR
NEW TRIAL

14
15

L. MICHAEL CLARK, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 714, 733

Defendants.
16
17

As indicated in this court’s September 9, 2016 order, the court will hold a hearing on

18

plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial on October 7, 2016 at 9:00 am. The main goal of the hearing will

19

be to investigate plaintiffs’ allegations of bias and exposure to extraneous evidence by Juror No. 4

20

in plaintiffs’ trial against defendant Beth Miller. The court finds the majority of the issues in

21

plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial suitable for decision without oral argument. Nevertheless, if time

22

allows, the court may allow the parties to make limited arguments after the court is finished

23

receiving testimony. The court warns that there are other cases on the morning calendar, so the

24

parties should plan to focus on only their most important issues.

25

The following evidentiary standards will apply. With respect to Adil Hiramanek’s claim

26

that Juror No. 4 allegedly failed to disclose knowledge of plaintiff’s status as a vexatious litigant

27

during voir dire, to obtain a new trial plaintiff must “first demonstrate that [the] juror failed to

28
1
5:13-cv-00228-RMW
ORDER REGARDING PROCEDURES FOR HEARING ON MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response

2

would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.” Pope v. Man-Data, Inc., 209 F.3d

3

1161, 1163 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S.

4

548, 556 (1984)). With respect to plaintiffs’ claim that a dictionary definition of “vexatious

5

litigation” unfairly prejudiced the verdict, a new trial may be warranted if “there is a reasonable

6

possibility that the material could have affected the verdict.” Sea Hawk Seafoods, Inc. v. Alyeska

7

Pipeline Service Co., 206 F.3d 900, 906 (9th Cir. 2000). “Where extraneous information is

8

imparted . . . the burden is generally on the party opposing a new trial to demonstrate the absence

9

of prejudice.” Id. “A juror may testify about whether: (A) extraneous prejudicial information was

10

improperly brought to the jury’s attention; [or] (B) an outside influence was improperly brought to

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

bear on any juror.” Fed. R. Evid. 606(b)(2). However, “a juror may not testify about any statement

12

made or incident that occurred during the jury’s deliberations; the effect of anything on that juror’s

13

or another juror’s vote; or any juror’s mental processes concerning the verdict . . . .” Fed. R. Evid.

14

606(b)(1). As the Ninth Circuit has summarized, “[j]urors may not testify as to how they or other

15

jurors were affected by the extraneous prejudicial information or outside influence; they may only

16

testify as to its existence.” Hard v. Burlington N. R. Co., 870 F.2d 1454, 1461 (9th Cir. 1989).

17

With these standards in mind, Ed Summerfield and Juror No. 4 will be called to testify on

18

October 7, 2016. The witnesses and any party (or their counsel) wishing to participate in the

19

evidentiary hearing shall appear in person. The court will conduct the questioning of the

20

witnesses, but the court may allow the parties to ask follow-up questions if appropriate. The court

21

will ask Mr. Summerfield about the events described in his August 7, 2016 declaration, Dkt. No.

22

712-1 Ex. A. Specifically, the court will inquire as to who Mr. Summerfield allegedly heard

23

talking about the word “vexatious” outside the courtroom, when this conversation took place, who

24

was present, and what was said. The court will ask Juror No. 4 about the source of the definition

25

of “vexatious litigation” that he found, what the definition was, when he first saw it, whether it

26

was shared with anyone else on the jury, and, if so, when. The court will also ask Juror No. 4 if he

27

had heard of either plaintiff before this trial began. Given the limited scope of testimony

28
2
5:13-cv-00228-RMW
ORDER REGARDING PROCEDURES FOR HEARING ON MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

1

permissible under FRE 606(b), it is not clear that additional questions would be appropriate.

2

However, if the parties want the court to ask specific questions or if they have procedural

3

concerns,1 they may file brief submissions, not to exceed two double-spaced pages, by Thursday,

4

October 6, 2016 at 2:00 pm. Mr. Hiramanek’s request for a case management conference, Dkt. No.

5

733, is DENIED.
No other witnesses will be called to testify. “Where a losing party in a civil case seeks to

6
7

impeach a jury verdict, it must be shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the outcome

8

would have been different. Unless the affidavits on their face support this conclusion, no

9

evidentiary hearing is required.” Hard, 870 F.2d at 1461. The court questions whether the
evidence plaintiffs have submitted is even sufficient to support a hearing involving Mr.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Summerfield or Juror No. 4. In any event, the court finds that plaintiffs’ evidence is insufficient to

12

support calling David Merritt (who did not submit a declaration in support of plaintiffs’ motion for

13

a new trial), additional jurors, or anyone else as witnesses. See TIG Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins.

14

Co., 250 F. Supp. 2d 1197, 1199 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that party that lost at trial had not

15

justified questioning jurors over alleged use of a dictionary during deliberations and explaining

16

that parties “are not entitled to question the jury based on suspicion”).

17
IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: October 5, 2016
______________________________________
Ronald M. Whyte
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiffs have cited no authority in support of their argument that Juror No. 4 should not be
represented by a lawyer during questioning. Moreover, plaintiffs’ argument that retention of a
lawyer suggests an attempt to conceal the truth lacks foundation.
3
5:13-cv-00228-RMW
ORDER REGARDING PROCEDURES FOR HEARING ON MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL