United States District Court, D. Delaware
HONORABLE LEONARD P. STARK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
reviewed the parties' joint status report (D.I. 201), and
having discussed with the parties issues relating to a new
trial during a teleconference on May 31, 2019, IT IS HEREBY
Trial on all claims on which the jury in the first trial did
not return a verdict will be held at some or all of the
following dates and times, subject to the parties' time
(a) Friday, July 12 at 9:00 a.m.: jury selection (and
possible start of trial, see below at ¶ 5);
(b) Monday, July 15 and Tuesday, July 16: 8:30 a.m. - 5:00
(c) Wednesday, July 17: 8:30 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.;
(d) Thursday, July 18: 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.; and
(e) Friday, July 19: 8:30 a.m. - 2:00 p.m.
side is allocated a maximum of eight (8) hours for its trial
presentation. The Court has reduced the allocation from what
it provided at the first trial (which was 11 hours per side)
for the following reasons: (a) this is a retrial, the parties
are already thoroughly familiar with each witness'
testimony and the documentary evidence that will be
presented, and greater efficiency should be readily
achievable; (b) the Court has resolved the parties'
evidentiary disputes at the first trial, so little if any
time should be needed to argue and resolve such disputes; (c)
having heard the witnesses' testimony, the Court is
firmly of the view that the examinations of most if not all
of the witnesses can be significantly reduced, without any
detriment (and likely with beneficial consequences) to either
side's trial presentation; and (d) some of the claims,
and some of the evidence, that were the subject of the first
trial will not be part of this second trial.
Court's present inclination (which is not an order, but
is an informed indication of the Court's tentative views,
based on the evidence presented and the arguments made to
date) is to deny Plaintiffs proposed post-trial motions
(see D.I. 201 at 2) and to deny all of
Defendants' proposed post-trial motions (see Id.
at 2-3) with the exception of their motion for judgment as a
matter of law of no punitive damages.
Notwithstanding the parties' objections and preference
(at least at certain times since the first jury returned its
partial verdict) for resolution of post-trial motions prior
to another trial, the Court has determined to proceed with
trial now, for the following reasons: (a) even were the
parties' post-trial motions to be granted, another trial
(on at least one claim) would be required; (b) the
Court's schedule would likely not permit the another
trial to be held for many months after resolution of the
motions, whereas the week of July 12-19 is presently
available; (c) trying the case sooner rather than later
should be most efficient for the parties, as counsel (and the
witnesses) will presumably require more time to prepare (or
re-prepare) for trial the longer the delay between the first
and second trials; and (d) the case is already quite aged,
having been filed more than five years ago.
Court has considered the parties' concerns about the lack
of availability of certain witnesses and finds that any
prejudice that may result is not sufficient to alter the
decision to proceed with trial in July. The witnesses'
schedules may be accommodated through at least any of the
following approaches: (a) Dr. Monnica Williams is available
and may testify on Monday, July 15; (b) Plaintiff believes he
can accommodate Lamont Smith's schedule; (c) if Dr.
Stevenson is not available at all during the scheduled trial,
the parties shall meet and confer and in the joint status
report ordered below indicate their positions on whether all
or a portion of his testimony from the first trial should be
read to the new jury and/or whether the Court should order a
videotaped deposition at which the testimony he would provide
at the new trial is taken and can be played for the new jury;
and (d) if Dr. Newton is available to testify on Friday, July
12, the Court can modify its schedule to allow for opening
statements and the testimony of (at least) Dr. Newton on July
12 - alternatively, the parties shall provide in the joint
status report their positions on whether all or a portion of
his testimony from the first trial should be read to the new
jury and/or whether the Court should order a videotaped
deposition at which the testimony he would provide at the new
trial is taken and can be played for the new jury.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
parties shall meet and confer and, no later than June 19,
submit a joint status report, indicating whether, if at all,
they request the opportunity to submit a revised proposed
pretrial order, additional motions in limine,
additional or different jury instructions and/or verdict
sheet, or whether, ...