Jewell v. Holzer Hosp. Foundation, Inc.

33 Citing cases

  1. Coneal v. Am. Commerce Ins. Co.

    CASE NO. 5:18-CV-00095-TBR-LLK (W.D. Ky. Sep. 20, 2019)   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses

    State law supplies the rules of decision for all the claims in this case, therefore, this Court must apply the Kentucky law regarding attorney client privilege. Jewell v. Holezer Hosp. Found., Inc., 899 F.2d 1507, 1513 (6th Cir. 1990) ("In a civil case involving claims based on state law, the existence of a privilege is to be determined in accordance with state, not federal, law.") see alsoBrown v. Tax Ease Lien Servicing, LLC, Case No. 3:15-CV-208-CRS, 2017 WL 6939338, at *11 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 16, 2017). Analysis

  2. Wilmington Trust Co. v. Aep Generating Co.

    Case No. 2:13-cv-1213 (S.D. Ohio Jul. 6, 2015)

    See id.; see also Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Grp., Inc. v. Cormetech, Inc., --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 5:14CV514, 2015 WL 350392, at *5 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 23, 2015) (applying Ohio privilege law in diversity case, noting that "Goodyear did not discuss why it applied federal common law to the privilege asserted"). Indeed, to hold otherwise would run counter to the Sixth Circuit's "unexamined point" precedent and also its longstanding precedent that state-law privileges apply in diversity cases. See Jewell v. Holzer Hosp. Found., Inc., 899 F.2d 1507, 1513 (6th Cir. 1990) ("In a civil case involving claims based on state law, the existence of a privilege is to be determined in accordance with state, not federal, law.") (citing Fed. R. Evid. 501); see also Surles ex rel. Johnson v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 474 F.3d 288, 296 (6th Cir. 2007) (noting that Rule 501 "direct[s] federal courts sitting in diversity to apply state evidentiary laws" regarding privileges). Instead of explaining Goodyear's silence on Rule 501, Defendants point to a number of non-binding district court decisions that apply Goodyear's settlement privilege in diversity cases.

  3. SBAV LP v. Porter Bancorp, Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-00710-TBR (W.D. Ky. Mar. 30, 2015)   Cited 2 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In SBAV LP v. Porter Bancorp, Inc., No. 3:13-CV-00710-TBR, 2015 WL 1471020 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 31, 2015), as amended (W.D. Ky. Apr. 1, 2015), the Court overruled Bancorp's objection to producing bank examination documents.

    Fed. R. Evid. 501. See also Jewell v. Holzer Hosp. Found., Inc., 899 F.2d 1507, 1513 (6th Cir. 1990) ("[I]n any civil action, state law governs privilege regarding a claim or defense for which state law supplies the rule of decision."). Where federal jurisdiction is premised upon diversity and each of the claims arises under Kentucky law, Kentucky law "supplies the rule of decision."

  4. Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Grp., Inc. v. Cormetech, Inc.

    81 F. Supp. 3d 632 (N.D. Ohio 2015)   Cited 3 times
    Applying Ohio privilege law in diversity case, noting that "Goodyear did not discuss why it applied federal common law to the privilege asserted"

    But in a civil case, state law governs privilege regarding a claim or defense for which state law supplies the rule of decision. Fed.R.Evid. 501 (emphasis supplied); see also Jewell v. Holzer Hosp. Found., Inc., 899 F.2d 1507, 1513 (6th Cir.1990) (“In a civil case involving claims based on state law, the existence of a privilege is to be determined in accordance with state, not federal, law[,]” citing Rule 501 ). Here, the Court's jurisdiction is premised upon diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and Babcock's claims, breach of warranty and indemnity, are based on state law.

  5. GNB Battery Technologies, Inc. v. Exide Corp.

    876 F. Supp. 605 (D. Del. 1995)   Cited 2 times

    Barnhart v. Dollar Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 595 F.2d 914, 919 (3d Cir. 1979); see also 9 Charles A. Wright Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2513, at 530-31 (1971) (collecting cases). Even where the answers to interrogatories and the verdict do conflict, a court should uphold the verdict if there exists a legal basis, supported by the evidence, upon which the verdict could be based. Jewell v. Holzer Hosp. Found., Inc., 899 F.2d 1507, 1510-11 (6th Cir. 1990) (citing Arnold v. Panhandle Santa Fe Ry., 353 U.S. 360, 361, 77 S.Ct. 840, 841, 1 L.Ed.2d 889 (1957) (stating that answers do not present a square conflict where they do not exhaust all possible grounds on which verdict could be based)). Even the failure to answer interrogatories is not fatal where the general verdict is supported by other facts or where answers to such questions, favorable to the party against whom judgment is rendered, would not necessarily render the judgment erroneous.

  6. Innovation Ventures, LLC v. N2G Distributing, Inc.

    763 F.3d 524 (6th Cir. 2014)   Cited 80 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defendants "waived their Rule 49(b) objection" when they "had the opportunity to object before the jury was discharged," but "waited until their post-trial motions to raise this issue"

    This argument fails because Rule 49 is not the appropriate vehicle for claims of insufficient evidence. See Jewell v. Holzer Hosp. Found., Inc., 899 F.2d 1507, 1511 (6th Cir.1990). We do not reach the merits of Defendants' inconsistent verdict argument, however, because Defendants waived their Rule 49(b) objection.

  7. Barrett v. Detroit Heading

    311 F. App'x 779 (6th Cir. 2009)   Cited 21 times
    Holding that "[t]he provisions of Rule 28 are ... unambiguously mandatory," and waiving an argument not listed in the statement of issues presented

    "Federal law favors the harmonization of verdicts and answers to interrogatories wherever that is reasonably possible." Jewell v. Holzer Hosp. Found., Inc., 899 F.2d 1507, 1510 (6th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). "[E]ven if the answers to jury interrogatories and the verdict do conflict, federal law favors upholding the verdict if there exists some legal basis, supported by the evidence, upon which the verdict could be based."

  8. In re Powerhouse Licensing, LLC

    441 F.3d 467 (6th Cir. 2006)   Cited 133 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that by electing to interject their attorney into the proceedings by submitting his affidavit, petitioners waived both the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine

    In a diversity case, the court applies federal law to resolve work product claims and state law to resolve attorney-client claims. Baker v. General Motors Corp., 209 F.3d 1051, 1053 (8th Cir. 2000); see also Fed.R.Evid. 501; Jewell v. Holzer Hosp. Found., Inc., 899 F.2d 1507, 1513 (6th Cir. 1990). A. Attorney-Client Privilege

  9. Conte v. General Housewares Corp.

    215 F.3d 628 (6th Cir. 2000)   Cited 104 times
    In Conte, this court noted: "In a diversity case, state law governs the district court's decision whether to award prejudgment interest,... which is reviewed by this court for an abuse of discretion, see Stallworth v. City of Cleveland, 893 F.2d 830, 836 (6th Cir. 1990) (applying Ohio law)."

    In a diversity case, federal law governs most issues surrounding the utilization of special interrogatories and the problem of inconsistent answers, including the effect of inconsistency between a general verdict and one or more special interrogatories. See Jewell v. Holzer Hosp. Found., Inc., 899 F.2d 1507, 1510 (6th Cir. 1990). However, federal courts look to state law to determine whether a verdict is inconsistent.

  10. Home Indem. Co. v. Lane Powell Moss and Miller

    43 F.3d 1322 (9th Cir. 1995)   Cited 161 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that discovery rulings are only reversible error if party appealing can show prejudice

    Fed.R.Evid. 501 "dictates that we look to state law to determine whether a court must allow a jury to draw a negative inference from a party's invocation of a privilege." Jewell v. Holzer Hosp. Found., Inc., 899 F.2d 1507, 1514 (6th Cir. 1990). Therefore, we find that the district court properly applied Alaska Rule of Evidence 512 in barring Lane Powell from raising negative inferences before the jury based on Home's assertion of the attorney-client privilege and in instructing the jury not to draw such inferences.