Sioux Falls Kenworth, Inc. et al v. Isuzu Commercial Truck of America, Inc.
Filing
141
OPINION AND ORDER re 140 MOTION for Leave to Contact and Interview Jurors. Signed by U.S. District Judge Roberto A. Lange on 11/16/2016.(JLS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SIOUX FALLS KENWORTH, INC., d/b/a
ISUZU TRUCKS OF SIOUX FALLS,
cierk
4;14-CV-04187-RAL
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO
CONTACT JURORS
vs.
ISUZU
COMMERCIAL
TRUCK
OF
AMEEHCA,INC.,
Defendant.
On November 2, 2016, after a jury trial, the jury in this ease returned a verdict for
Plaintiff Sioux Falls Kenworth, Inc. (Sioux Falls Kenworth) and against Defendant Isuzu
Commercial Truck of America, Inc. (Isuzu) on one count of violation of SDCL § 32-6B-45 and
awarded damages of $1,600,000.00 on that count. The jury also returned a verdict for Sioux
Falls Kenworth and against Isuzu on one count of breach of an implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing and awarded damages of $76,000.00 for certain unpaid warranty work done by
Sioux Falls Kenworth on Isuzu trucks. The jury found in favor of Isuzu on one count of breach
of contract involving termination of a franchise agreement and on a question of whether Isuzu
violated South Dakota law by failing to pay Sioux Falls Kenworth a 58% markup on parts used
in warranty repairs. Doc. 135. Isuzu has now moved under Local Rule 47.2 for permission to
contact the jurors in this ease. Doc. 140.
Civil Local Rule 47.2, entitled "RESTRICTION ON INTERVIEWING JURORS,"
states: "No one may contact any juror before or during the juror's service on a case. The parties,
their lawyers and anybody acting on their behalf must seek and obtain permission from the
district judge who tried the case before contacting a juror after the juror served on the case."
D.S.D. Civ. LR 47.2. District courts have wide discretion when deciding whether to allow
litigants to contact jurors after trial. United States v. Booker. 334 F.3d 406, 416 (5th Cir. 2003);
McCabe v. Macaulav. No. 05-CV-73-LRR, 2008 WL 5070706, at *1 (N.D. Iowa Nov. 25,
2008); 3 Jack B. Weinstem & Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 606.05[1][C]
(2d ed. 1997). As a general rule, federal courts disfavor post-trial interviews of jurors. See
United States v. Self. 681 F.3d 190, 199(3d Cir. 2012); United States v. McDougal 47 F. Supp.
2d 1103, 1104(E.D. Ark. 1999); Weinstem & Berger, supra. § 606.06[1]("The federal courts are
notoriously reluctant to permit either informal post-verdict interviews with or testimony from
discharged jurors."). The reasons for this disfavor include protecting jurors from harassment,
preserving jurors' freedom of deliberation, preventing jury tampering, and increasing the
certainty of verdicts. Pall v. Coffin. 970 F.2d 964, 972 (1st Cir. 1992); Wilkerson v. Amco
Corp.. 703 F.2d 184, 85-86(5th Cir. 1983);Weinstein & Berger, supra. § 606.06[1].
These same reasons form the basis of Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b), which generally
precludes the admission ofjuror testimony to impeach a verdict. Fed. R. Evid. 606(b) advisory
committee's note to 1972 proposed rules (explaining that the "values sought to be served" by
excluding evidence received for the purpose of invalidating a verdict "include freedom of
deliberation, stability and finality of verdicts, and protection of jurors against annoyance and
embarrassment"). Rule 606(b) provides:
(b) During an Inquiry Into the Validity of a Verdict or
Indictment.
(1) Prohibited Testimony or Other Evidence. During an
inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not
testify about any statement made or incident that occurred during
the jury's deliberations; the effect of anything on that juror's or
another juror's vote; or any juror's mental processes concerning
the verdict or indictment. The court may not receive a juror's
affidavit or evidence of a juror's statement on these matters.
(2) Exceptions. A juror may testify about whether:
(A)extraneous prejudicial information was
improperly brought to the jury's attention;
(B)an outside influence was improperly brought to
bear on any juror; or
(C) a mistake was made m entering the verdict on
the verdict form.
Fed. R. Evid. 606.
Courts typically deny a litigant's request to interview jurors post-verdict absent a
threshold showing of an outside intrusion into the jury process. United States v. Wright. 506
F.3d 1293, 1303 (10th Cir. 2007) ("This court has held that a trial judge is well within his
discretion in denying leave to inquire ofjurors where there was no claim of external interference
with the process."); Booker. 334 F.3d at 416 ("A trial court's decision to deny an attorney's
request for post-trial interviews is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Only when there is a
showing of illegal or prejudicial intrusion into the jury process will the court sanction such an
inquiry.")(internal citations omitted); McElrov bv McElrov v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.. 894
F.2d 1504, 1511 (11th Cir. 1990)(holding that denial of post-verdict motion to interview jurors
was not an abuse of discretion where moving party did not allege that any prejudicial
information or outside influence was brought to bear on the jury); McCabe. 2008 WL 5070706,
at *2 (denying motion to interview jurors because moving party did not make a preliminary
showing that members ofthe jury either learned of any extraneous prejudicial information or that
outside influences were brought to bear upon them); Allen v. United States. No. 4:07CV00027
ERW,2008 WL 80061, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 4, 2008)(same); Economou v. Little. 850 F. Supp.
849, 852(N.D. Cal. 1994)("Most federal courts deny requests to conduct post-verdict interviews
of jurors unless there is a proper preliminary showing of likely juror misconduct or witness
incompetency."); see also United States v. Eagle. 539 F.2d 1166, 1170 (8th Cir. 1976)(holding
that defendant had no right to subpoena jurors after trial when he had not made "specific
allegations that any of them engaged in overt improper acts susceptible of proof). Mere
"'fishing expeditions' carried out by losing attorneys interested in casting doubt on the jury's
verdict" are not allowed. Journal Pub. Co. v. Mechem. 801 F.2d 1233, 1236(10th Cir. 1986).
Here, Isuzu has not explained why it seeks to interview the jurors, let alone made any
preliminary showing that there was an outside intrusion into the jury process. * This Court
presumes that Isuzu wants to interview the jurors for educational purposes, but such a request
would be within this Court's discretion to deny. See Haeberle v. Texas lnt'1 Airlines. 739 F.2d
1019 (5th Cir. 1984)("The first-amendment interests of both the disgruntled litigant and its
counsel in order to satisfy their curiosity and improve their advocacy are limited. We agree with
the district court's implicit conclusion that those interests are not merely balanced but plainly
outweighed by the jurors' interest in privacy and the public's interest in well-administered
justice."); McDougal. 47 F. Supp. 2d at 1105 (declining government's motion to interview jurors
after mistrial where stated purpose of interview was to determine whether to retry case); Olsson
V. A.O. Smith Harvestore Prods.. Inc.. 696 F. Supp. 411, 412 (S.D. Ind. 1986) ("Absent a
showing of evidence ofjuror impropriety, an attorney is not permitted to invade the province of
the jury room for the purpose of improving his skills as a trial lawyer by ascertaining from the
jurors which facets of the trial influenced their verdict."). Nevertheless, this Court may allow
Isuzu some contact with the jury, provided that Isuzu does not intend to engage in a "fishing
expedition" designed to gin up some basis for a new trial. To that end, Isuzu should submit to
this Court the questions it plans on asking the jurors. If this Court approves of the questions,
Isuzu will be free to contact the jurors, as long as any contact with the jurors is prefaced with an
explanation that the jurors are not required to speak with Isuzu and can terminate their contact
with Isuzu at any time.
For the reasons stated above, it is hereby
ORDERED that Isuzu submit to this Court a list of the questions it intends to ask the
jurors.
DATED this 16th day of November,2016.
BY THE COURT:
ROBERTO A. LANGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?