Opinion
Civil Action No. 99-2467-CM
May 9, 2001
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on plaintiff's motion for a new trial (Doc. 194). The case was tried to a jury, and the jury returned a unanimous verdict for defendant. Plaintiff moves the court to grant a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a)(1).
I. Standards
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) authorizes a court to grant a new trial "for any of the reasons for which new trials have heretofore been granted in actions at law in the courts of the United States." Motions for a new trial are generally regarded with disfavor and "`should only be granted with great caution.'" United Phosphorus, Ltd. v. Midland Fumigant, Inc., 21 F. Supp.2d 1247, 1250 (D.Kan. 1998) (quoting United States v. Thornbrugh, 962 F.2d 1438, 1443 (10th Cir. 1992)).
A party moving for a new trial based upon errors of law must show that error occurred and that the error affected the substantial rights of the parties. Fed.R.Civ.P. 61; Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. P.B. Hoidale Co., 804 F. Supp. 137, 141 (D.Kan. 1992). As such, the court should "`ignore errors that do not affect the essential fairness of the trial.'" Id. (quoting McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 553 (1984)).
II. Discussion
• McDonnell-Douglas Jury Instruction
Plaintiff moves for a new trial based on the court's exclusion of a jury instruction which sets forth the McDonnell-Douglas burden shifting formula. The court finds that it properly instructed the jury as to plaintiff's race discrimination claim in accordance with the law in the Tenth Circuit. In Messina v. Kroblin Transportation Sys., Inc., 903 F.2d 1306, 1308 (10th Cir. 1990), the court stated:
The McDonnell Douglas inferences provide assistance to a judge as he addresses motions to dismiss, for summary judgment, and for directed verdict, but they are of little relevance to the jury. The district courts, therefore, to avoid potential jury confusion, should prepare instructions that do not rely on technical legal distinctions likely to be understood only by attorneys and judges.Thus, the Tenth Circuit has specifically rejected instructions detailing the McDonnell-Douglas burden shifting analysis. Murray v. City of Sapulpa, 45 F.3d 1417, 1421 (10th Cir. 1995). Based on Messina, the court in this case ruled that an instruction setting forth the McDonnell-Douglas burden shifting framework was not appropriate. Instead, the court instructed the jury as to each and every element that plaintiff had to prove and further charged the jury that evidence of intentional discrimination could be inferred. Accordingly, the court's refusal to give the requested McDonnell-Douglas instruction is not grounds for a new trial because the instructions given to the jury fairly, adequately, and correctly stated the governing law. Coletti v. Cudd Pressure Control, 165 F.3d 767, 771 (10th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff's motion for a new trial on this issue is denied.
• Jury Question
Exhibit 401 was admitted into evidence without objection from plaintiff. Thus, plaintiff has waived any opportunity to object to the jury's consideration of the content of the report. More importantly, the jury's question does not support plaintiff's contention that the jury was speculating and ultimately made a conclusion which was unsupported by the evidence. To the contrary, the jury's question indicates that it was giving thorough consideration of the evidence. Moreover, the jury was instructed to determine the evidence solely as presented at trial and was further instructed as to the elements of a false arrest claim. Without more, the court presumes that the jury followed the court's instructions in reaching its verdict. A new trial on this basis is not appropriate.
Plaintiff argues that the jury was speculating during deliberations and that, as a result, a new trial is warranted. Plaintiff bases his argument on the fact that the jury submitted a question to the court during deliberations asking, "The question is Exhibit 401 Hall had clocked out and is refusing to leave the premise And the question is, `had he clocked out?'" The jury was apparently referring to the narrative report of a police officer who was at the scene of plaintiff's arrest. • Verdict Not Supported by the Weight of the Evidence The court finds that defendant produced sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict that defendant did not discriminate against plaintiff on June 4, 1998. Gary Watkins testified that he did not learn the name of the person who was permitted to work overtime on that day until this litigation commenced. Plaintiff contends that the evidence showed that Watkins knew the individual's identity later that night. It is within the jury's exclusive province to assess the credibility of witnesses and determine the weight to be given to their testimony. Beck v. Northern Natural Gas Co., 170 F.3d 1018, 1022 (10 Cir. 1999). A jury finding based on conflicting evidence stands. Dugan v. EMS Helicopters, Inc., 915 F.2d 1428, 1430 (10 Cir. 1990). In this case, at most, there existed conflicting evidence as to when Watkins determined the identity of the individual who was permitted to work. As such, the jury verdict on plaintiff's discrimination claim will not be disturbed. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED