Smith v. Kansa Technology, LLC et al

Filing 104

ORDER AND REASONS denying 97 Motion for leave to interview jurors. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 6/28/2018. (blg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHAMBRIA NECOLE SMITH

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 16-16597

KANSA TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.

SECTION I

ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is a motion1 for leave to interview jurors filed by plaintiff
Shambria Necole Smith (“Smith”). Defendant Kansa Technology, L.L.C. (“Kansa”)
opposes the motion. 2 For the following reasons, the motion is denied.
In April of 2018, Smith was the plaintiff in a trial before another section of this
Court. At the conclusion of trial, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Kansa. 3 In her
motion, Smith—without a single citation to any case law—requests leave to permit
her counsel to interview the jurors from her case and “obtain any additional
information that may or may not support a finding of a jury taint along with
evidentiary issues.” 4
According to Smith, her expert witness observed one of defense counsel’s staff
members interacting with someone Smith identifies as “Ms. Hydel” (“Hydel”), a

R. Doc. No. 97. Smith correctly notes that the local civil rules prohibit attorneys
from speaking with, examining or interviewing any juror regarding the proceedings,
except with leave of court.” E.D. La. L.R. 47.5.
2 R. Doc. No. 101.
3 R. Doc. No. 87.
4 R. Doc. No. 97, at 2.
1

supposed “courier” for one of the jurors, during trial. 5 Kansa does not deny the
interaction occurred, but it argues that the conversation between its staff member,
Tammi Miller (“Miller”), and Hydel was not improper and did not influence Hydel or
any member of the jury. 6 According to Miller’s affidavit, Hydel walked out of the
courtroom into the hallway where Miller was sitting and stated that she had been
asked to leave Judge Engelhardt’s courtroom because she was drinking from a water
bottle. 7 Miller claims that she responded by commenting that Judge Engelhardt had
instructed her to sit down when she was handing defense counsel a document. 8 Smith
does not contest Miller’s account of the conversation.
“Federal courts have generally disfavored post-verdict interviewing of jurors.”
Haeberle v. Tex. Int’l Airlines, 739 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1984). The Fifth Circuit
has “repeatedly refused to ‘denigrate jury trials by afterwards ransacking the jurors
in search of some new ground, not previously supported by evidence, for a new trial.’”
Id. (quoting United States v. Riley, 544 F.2d 237, 242 (5th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 430
U.S. 932 (1977)). A district court has discretion over a party’s request to interview
jurors post-trial. Abel v. Ochsner Clinic Found., No. 06-8517, 2010 WL 1552823, at *1
(5th Cir. 2010) (citing United States v. Booker, 334 F.3d 406, 416 (5th Cir. 2003)); see
also Green Constr. Co. v. Kan. Power & Light Co., 1 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 1993)
(“District courts have ‘wide discretion’ to restrict attorney-juror contact in order to

Id. at 2.
R. Doc. No. 103, at 9.
7 R. Doc. No. 101-1, at 1.
8 Id.
5
6

2

shield jurors from post-trial ‘fishing expeditions’ by losing attorneys.”). Any party
questioning the integrity of a jury on prejudice grounds bears the burden of proving
prejudice by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Riley, 544 F.2d 237,
242 (5th Cir. 1976). Smith has not met her burden because she has offered no
compelling reason for the Court to permit her counsel to interview the jurors.
She does not suggest that Miller interacted with a juror. Rather, it is
undisputed that whomever Miller spoke with was not a member of the jury. 9 Even
then, Smith does not argue that their conversation was inappropriate or that it
pertained to the trial. In her affidavit, Miller attests that she never “discuss[ed] with
[Hydel] any aspect of the trial proceedings,” a contention Smith does not refute. 10
Smith has likewise not provided any evidence demonstrating prejudice to her
case as a result of the alleged conversation. 11 Smith’s allegations of potential jury
taint are thus wholly speculative, and any suggestion of jury misconduct is
unsubstantiated. Without any additional evidence that the interaction between
Hydel and Miller tainted or improperly influenced the jury or the jury’s verdict, the
Court declines to upset this Circuit’s general rule disfavoring post-trial jury
interviews.
The Court similarly declines to authorize a juror interview based on the
amorphous allegation that such an interview might glean information regarding

R. Doc. No. 94-1, at 6.
R .Doc. No. 101-1, at 2.
11 Nothing prevents Smith’s counsel from speaking with the “courier.”
9

10

3

“evidentiary issues.” 12 Smith has not articulated any legal basis or support that
persuades this Court to exercise its discretion and grant her request.
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that Smith’s motion is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, June 28, 2018.

_______________________________________
LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12

R. Doc. No. 94-1, at 2.
4