RUDOVSKY et al v. WEST PUBLISHING CORPORATION et al

Filing 108

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WILL BE DISMISSED AS MOOT; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOHN P. FULLAM ON 4/13/11. 4/13/11 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E-MAILED.(jl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DAVID RUDOVSKY and
LEONARD SOSNOV
v.
WEST PUBLISHING CORPORATION,
WEST SERVICES INC., and
THOMSON LEGAL AND REGULATORY
INC. t/a THOMSON WEST

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 09-cv-00727-JF

MEMORANDUM
Fullam, Sr. J.

April 13, 2011

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for (partial)
reconsideration of this Court’s Order dated March 30, 2011,
which required plaintiffs either to agree to a remittitur of the
punitive damage award, or face a new trial.

According to the

plaintiffs, since the reduction was predicated upon the Court’s
belief that the jury’s punitive damage award exceeded permissible
constitutional limits (rather than being based on a purported
lack of evidence), the Court should have simply entered a
judgment in the reduced amount.

The net effect would be that

either side could appeal the judgment.

I agree that this would

have been the favorable course, and will grant the motion for
reconsideration.
It should be noted, however, that much of the
plaintiffs’ argument is based upon a misapprehension of the
Court’s reasoning.

In stating that the jury’s excessive award

“may have been too much influenced by the net worth of the
defendants,” I did not mean to suggest that the net worth of the

defendants should not have been considered.

The intent was to

suggest that the parties may have made too much of an issue of
the defendants’ net worth.

As I thought I had made clear, the

reduction in the punitive damage award was entirely based upon my
perception that, in the circumstances of this case, a total
punitive damage award of $5 million could not possibly be squared
with constitutional limits, and that the permissible maximum was
$110,000 for each plaintiff.
Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (filed April 12,
2011) will be dismissed as moot.

An Order follows.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ John P. Fullam
John P. Fullam, Sr. J.

2