HOUSER v. BEARD et al

Filing 400

ORDER denying 396 Motion for Newly Discovered Evidence. Signed by Judge Donetta W. Ambrose on 3/21/2016. (sps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DARIEN HOUSER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LOUIS S. FOLINO, SUPERINTENDENT,
SCI-GREENE, and DR. JIN, MD,
Defendants.
AMBROSE, Senior District Judge

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

No. 2:10-cv-00416

MEMORANDUM ORDER OF COURT
Pending is Plaintiff’s Motion for Newly Discovered Evidence.

[ECF No. 396].

Defendants Louis Folino and Dr. Jin each filed a Brief in Opposition. [ECF Nos. 398, 399].
Plaintiff’s Motion requests that I vacate the December 4, 2015 judgment entered after a jury
verdict in favor of Defendants and grant a new trial in this case based on two ultrasound reports
dated in February 2016. [ECF No. 396-2; 396-4]. Plaintiff contends that these ultrasound
reports show that Dr. Jin testified falsely at trial regarding Plaintiff’s gynecomastia and testicular
knot. [ECF No. 396]. After a careful review of the submissions of the parties, Plaintiff’s Motion
is denied.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) provides that:
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from
a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
....
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been
discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b) . . . .

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2). The decision to grant or deny relief under Rule 60(b) lies in the sound
discretion of the trial court guided by accepted legal principles applied in light of all relevant

circumstances. Ross v. Meagan, 638 F.2d 646, 648 (3d Cir. 1981). Under Rule 60(b)(2), the
term “newly discovered evidence” refers to “evidence of facts in existence at the time of trial of
which the aggrieved party was excusably ignorant.” Bohus v. Beloff, 950 F.2d 919, 930 (3d Cir.
1991). A party is entitled to a new trial only if the newly discovered evidence is “(1) material and
not merely cumulative; (2) could not have been discovered prior to trial through the exercise of
reasonable diligence; and (3) would probably have changed the outcome of the trial.” Id.
In this case, the “evidence” Plaintiff attaches to his motion is not “newly discovered” within
the meaning of Rule 60(b)(2) – i.e., it is not information that was available but unknown at the time
of trial. Rather, the reports and records at issue were generated in 2016 – well after trial.
Moreover, since the 2016 reports postdate Dr. Jin’s treatment of Plaintiff during the relevant time
period, the new reports are immaterial to the claims against Dr. Jin that Plaintiff presented to the
jury. Finally, contrary to Plaintiff’s arguments, nothing in the 2016 records is inconsistent with Dr.
Jin’s testimony regarding Plaintiff’s medical conditions or otherwise suggests a basis that would
have changed the outcome of the trial. For all of these reasons, Plaintiff Darien Houser’s Motion
for Newly Discovered Evidence [ECF No. 396] is denied.
AND NOW, this 21st day of March, 2016, it is so ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/Donetta W. Ambrose__________
Donetta W. Ambrose,
Senior U.S. District Judge