Adams, et al v. USA

Filing 2075

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE MOTION TO RECONSIDER DECISION ON TRIAL FORMAT denying 1885 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by cjm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

TIMM ADAMS, et al.,
Case No. 4:CV 03-49-BLW
Plaintiffs,
v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER RE MOTION TO
RECONSIDER DECISION ON
TRIAL FORMAT

Defendants.

The Court has before it a motion to reconsider. DuPont asks the Court to
reconsider its ruling denying DuPont’s request that the trial in this case consist of a series
of mini-trials. See Case Management Order (Dkt. 1808). In that decision, the Court
analyzed the shortcomings of DuPont’s approach and concluded that “[t]he single trial
remains the best way for resolving this dispute.” Id. at p. 2. The Court reasoned that the
mini-trials proposed by Dupont would cause a “substantial delay,” and could “lead[] to
inconsistent results.” Id. While the Court noted that sequential trials on causation and
damages had a theoretical appeal, it ultimately concluded that based on the bellwether
trial experience, sequential trials would be unworkable because “proof on causation and
damages is so intertwined that it cannot be so neatly compartmentalized.” Id.
Since that decision, one of the stronger reasons for holding mini-trials is no longer
applicable. The plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss their claims for fraud/assumed duty, and
Memorandum Decision & Order - 1

hence there is no need to bifurcate those claims to avoid any spillover effect that could
unfairly enhance the recovery of plaintiffs who are not making such claims.
Nevertheless, the Court, upon further reflection, believes that there may be some
value in having a sequential resolution of issues by the same jury. For example, if claims
could be grouped so that the jury could hear both sides of the particular claim group
before moving on to the next claim group, the jury’s comprehension would be improved
because there would not be a multi-month delay between hearing a plaintiff’s claim and
DuPont’s response. In addition, it is at least theoretically possible that the plaintiffs can
be broken into 3 or 4 groups who have such common claims and are subject to such
common defenses that jury comprehension and the accuracy of their decision may be
enhanced by separate trials. Likewise, a grouping of the plaintiffs by geographical area
might make sense given the specific causation issues which the jury must resolve. These
are only examples of possible groupings.
There would be little loss of judicial economy with this approach, because the
same jury would hear the same evidence. In each trial, the jury would be allowed to
consider and draw upon testimony from the prior trials.

To avoid having to recall

witnesses, counsel would be permitted in their opening statements to make extensive
reference to the prior trial testimony.
The Court will leave it to counsel to consider, discuss and seek agreement on
whether a trial in sequence, but with the same jury, makes sense and, if so, what the
groupings should be. In a telephone conference, counsel agreed to meet together and try
Memorandum Decision & Order - 2

to reach some agreement.
Under these circumstances, the Court is not adopting DuPont’s proposal in the
present motion and hence will deny that motion. The Court will direct counsel to meet
together and try to reach an agreement on how to present this case to the jury. If no
agreement can be reached, the parties are to submit their proposals to the Court for a final
resolution.
ORDER
In accordance with the Memorandum Decision above,
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion for
reconsideration (docket no. 1885) is DENIED and counsel are directed to meet together
and attempt to reach an agreement on how this case can be presented to the jury.

DATED: September 16, 2011

Honorable B. Lynn Winmill
Chief U. S. District Judge

Memorandum Decision & Order - 3