Bouret-Echevarria v. Caribbean Aviation Maintenance, 1st Cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 Bouret-Echevarria v. Caribbean Aviation Maintenance, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/29

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 2549LI ZZETTE M. BOURET- ECHEVARR A, i n her own capaci t y and i n

r epr esent at i on of her mi nor chi l dr en; N. V. - B. , mi nor ; C. V. - B,mi nor ; C. V. - B. , mi nor ,Pl ai nt i f f s , Appel l ant s,

J OS ANTONI O MONTANO; DI EGO VI DAL- LAMPN; I RMA I RI SVI DAL- GONZLEZ; MARI NI EVES VI DAL- GONZLEZ; DI EGO VI DAL- SHI RLEY,

Pl ai nt i f f s,

v.

CARI BBEAN AVI ATI ON MAI NTENANCE CORP. ; ROBI NSON HELI COPTERCOMPANY; CHARTI S I NSURANCE COMPANY OF PUERTO RI CO, a/ k/ a Amer i can

I nt er nat i onal I nsurance Company of Puer t o Ri co; PATHFI NDERI NDEMNI TY COMPANY LTD. ; D&O AVI ATI ON, I NC. ,

Def endant s, Appel l ees,

I NSURANCE COMPANI ES X, Y, AND Z; CORPORATI ONS A, B AND C; J OHNDOE; RI CHARD ROE; ABC I NSURANCE COMPANI ES; DEF I NSURANCE COMPANY;

J ANE DOE, CORP. ; J KL I NSURANCE COMPANY,Def endants.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. Gust avo A. Gel p , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Li pez, and Bar r on,Ci r cui t J udges.

Davi d P. Anguei r a f or appel l ant s.Ti mA. Goet z, wi t h whomCat hr i ne E. Tauscher was on br i ef , f or

appel l ee Robi nson Hel i copt er Company. Ti m A. Goet z, wi t h whomCat hr i ne E. Tauscher was on br i ef , f or appel l ee Robi nson Hel i copt erCompany.

Loui s R. Mar t nez f or appel l ees Car i bbean Avi at i on Mai nt enanceCorp. and Char t i s I nsur ance Company of Puer t o Ri co.


2/29

Apr i l 24, 2015

-2-


3/29

LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. Thi s case ar ose f r oma hel i copt er

cr ash i n November 2008 t hat ki l l ed a passenger i n t he hel i copt er ,

Di ego Vi dal - Gonzal ez. The decedent ' s wi dow, Dr . Li zzet t e Bour et -

Echevar r i a, and her t hr ee mi nor chi l dr en ( t oget her "appel l ant s" ) ,

br ought a pr oduct s l i abi l i t y act i on agai nst t he hel i copt er ' s

manuf actur er and repai r company. The j ur y absol ved al l def endant s

of l i abi l i t y.

Appel l ant s cl ai m t hat ei ght een mont hs af t er t he j ur y

r et ur ned i t s ver di ct , t hey wer e t ol d t hat t he ver di ct was

i nf l uenced by t he j ur or s' i mpr oper knowl edge of a conf i dent i al

set t l ement of f er . I n t hi s appeal , t hey chal l enge t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s r ej ect i on of t hei r r equest f or an evi dent i ar y hear i ng,

pur suant t o Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 60( b) ( 6) , t o expl or e

t he al l eged j ur y t ai nt .

I n denyi ng t hi s r equest , t he di st r i ct cour t mi scal cul at ed

t he t i mel i ness of t he mot i on, di d not assume, as r equi r ed by l aw,

t he t r ut h of f act- speci f i c st at ement s set f or t h i n af f i davi t s

suppor t i ng t he Rul e 60( b) ( 6) mot i on, and di d not appr eci at e t he

i nabi l i t y of appel l ant s, under t he unusual ci r cumst ances her e, t o

avoi d r el i ance on hear say i n seeki ng Rul e 60( b) ( 6) r el i ef . Hence,

we concl ude t hat t he cour t abused i t s di scr et i on i n denyi ng t he

mot i on f or 60( b) r el i ef wi t hout hol di ng an evi dent i ar y hear i ng. We

t her ef ore vacate t he cour t ' s or der and r emand f or such a hear i ng.

-3-


4/29

I.

A. Background

I n t he under l yi ng pr oducts l i abi l i t y sui t , appel l ant s

f i l ed a wr ongf ul death act i on agai nst Robi nson Hel i copt er Company

( "Robi nson") , t he manuf act ur er of t he hel i copt er , and Car r i bean

Avi at i on Mai nt enance Cor p. ( t he "CAM def endant s" ) , who r epai r ed the

hel i copt er . The pr oduct s l i abi l i t y case was t r i ed i n Febr uar y 2012,

wi t h At t or ney Car l os J . Mor al es- Bauza ( "At t or ney Mor al es" ) , a San

J uan at t or ney, r epresent i ng appel l ant s.

Appel l ant s asser t t hat , pr i or t o j ur y del i ber at i ons,

At t or ney Mor al es r ecei ved a conf i dent i al set t l ement of f er of $3. 5

mi l l i on, compr i sed of $3 mi l l i on f r om one def endant and $500, 000

f r om another def endant . The CAM def endant s acknowl edge t hat t hey

unsuccessf ul l y at t empt ed t o set t l e wi t h appel l ant s, but t hey deny

t hat ei t her amount r ef l ect s t hei r set t l ement of f er . Robi nson admi t s

t hat set t l ement was di scussed at var i ous t i mes, but asser t s i t made

no f or mal set t l ement of f er and that i t was unawar e of t he

set t l ement amount of f er ed by the CAM def endant s. Appel l ant s

r ej ect ed t he of f er and pr oceeded t o t r i al . On Mar ch 16, 2012, t he

j ur y r et ur ned a unani mous ver di ct f i ndi ng t hat t he CAM def endant s

wer e not negl i gent i n t hei r r epai r of t he hel i copt er , and t hat

Robi nson' s desi gn of t he hel i copt er was not def ect i ve. Fi nal

j udgment was enter ed on Mar ch 19, 2012. Appel l ant s f i l ed a mot i on

f or a new t r i al , whi ch was deni ed on May 9, 2012.

-4-


5/29

Si xt een mont hs l ater , on Sept ember 4, 2013, appel l ant s

f i l ed a mot i on pur suant t o Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 60( b) ( 6)

seeki ng an evi dent i ar y hear i ng t o assess an al l egat i on t hat t he

i nt r oduct i on of ext r aneous pr ej udi ci al i nf or mat i on, namel y

appel l ant s' r ej ect i on of t he set t l ement of f er , was i mpr oper l y

i nj ect ed i nt o j ur y del i ber at i ons. I n suppor t of t hei r mot i on,

appel l ant s submi t t ed af f i davi t s f r om At t or ney Davi d P. Anguei r a

( "At t or ney Anguei r a" ) and Li zzet t e Bour et - Echevar r i a, t he wi dow of

t he passenger ki l l ed i n t he hel i copt er crash. The af f i davi t s

r epor t ed t hat Lui s I r i zar r y, an avi at i on exper t wi t ness who

t est i f i ed on behal f of appel l ant s dur i ng t hei r t r i al , was t he

sour ce of t he al l egat i on of j ur or mi sconduct . I n May 2013,

subsequent t o appel l ant s' t r i al , I r i zar r y pr ovi ded exper t ser vi ces

i n an unr el at ed avi at i on case wher e he al l egedl y met an i ndi vi dual

who cl ai med t o be t he empl oyer of a j ur or i n appel l ant s' case. The

empl oyer t ol d I r i zar r y t hat hi s empl oyee i nf or med hi mt hat t he j ur y

decl i ned t o awar d appel l ant any money damages because t hey knew she

had been of f er ed and r ej ect ed a $3. 5 mi l l i on set t l ement .

I r i zar r y communi cat ed t hi s i nf or mat i on t o appel l ant s'

t r i al counsel , At t or ney Mor al es, who i n t ur n i nf or med Bour et -

Echevar r i a. She t hen r et ai ned At t or ney Anguei r a, a Bost on at t or ney,

and i nf or med hi mof t he pot ent i al j ur y mi sconduct di scl osur es made

by At t orney Moral es. At t he t i me, At t orney Anguei r a was not

admi t t ed t o t he Puer t o Ri co Bar . He asked appel l ant s t o i nqui r e

-5-


6/29

whet her At t orney Moral es woul d agr ee t o act as co- counsel i n order

t o f i l e post - j udgment mot i ons and pr esent evi dence of j ur y

mi sconduct t o the cour t . Wi t hi n t went y- f our hour s af t er t hat

r equest was made, At t or ney Mor al es sent a l et t er t o appel l ant s

i ndi cat i ng t hat he was i mmedi at el y wi t hdr awi ng f r om t he case.

At t or ney Anguei r a t hen sought ot her l ocal counsel t o assi st hi m.

At t or ney Anguei r a al so cal l ed I r i zar r y i n an at t empt t o

conf i r m t he i nf or mat i on r epor t ed t o appel l ant s. I n hi s af f i davi t ,

At t or ney Anguei r a st at es t hat I r i zar r y t ol d hi m he woul d not be

abl e t o speak wi t h hi m wi t hout t he per mi ssi on of At t or ney Mor al es.

At t orney Anguei r a then cal l ed At t orney Moral es and l ef t a message

aski ng t hat he r et ur n t he cal l . At t or ney Mor al es never r et ur ned t he

cal l .

B. District Court's Denial of the Rule 60(b)(6) Motion

The di st r i ct cour t deni ed appel l ant s' Rul e 60( b) ( 6)

mot i on, f i ndi ng t hat t he ei ght een- mont h per i od bet ween t he ent r y of

f i nal j udgment and t he f i l i ng of t he mot i on made t he mot i on

unt i mel y, and t hat t he mat er i al s f i l ed i n suppor t of t he mot i on

wer e i nsuf f i ci ent . The cour t st at ed, "[ w] hi l e t her e i s no speci f i c

l i mi t under Rul e 60( b) ( 6) , seeki ng r el i ef ei ght een mont hs af t er

f i nal j udgment pushes agai nst r easonabl eness. " The cour t went on t o

st at e t hat "Pl ai nt i f f s pr esent t o t he cour t onl y hear say evi dence

of t he supposed t ai nt ed j ur y del i ber at i ons" and t hat t he t wo

af f i davi t s br ought i n suppor t of t he mot i on wer e "i nsuf f i ci ent t o

-6-


7/29

push Pl ai nt i f f s' cl ai ms beyond t he daunt i ng t hr eshol d r equi r ed by

Rul e 60( b) . I f t hi s mat er i al wer e suf f i ci ent t o f or ce a cour t t o

hol d an evi dent i ar y hear i ng, t he cour t woul d be pot ent i al l y

r equi r ed i n any ci vi l case t o gr ant an evi dent i ar y hear i ng

f ol l owi ng a j ur y ver di ct based on mer e r umor s, r egar dl ess of how

much t i me had el apsed si nce j udgment . Rul e 60( b) i s not sat i sf i ed

t hat easi l y. " 1 Appel l ant s f i l ed t hi s t i mel y appeal .

II.

A. The Applicable Subsection of Rule 60(b)

Rul e 60( b) gr ant s f eder al cour t s t he power t o vacat e

j udgment s "whenever such act i on i s appr opr i at e t o accompl i sh

1 The di st r i ct cour t al so deni ed t he Rul e 60( b) mot i on on t hebasi s of i t s anal ysi s of a compl ai nt by appel l ant s i n t hei r mot i onabout t he conduct of J ur or Number 4. At t r i al , Bour et - Echevar r i awas accompani ed by her cousi n, Ri char d Cora, on sever al occasi ons.J ur or Number 4 i nf or med t he cour t t hat he knew Cor a, pr ompt i ng t hecour t t o hol d a hear i ng, wi t h counsel pr esent , t o i nqui r e i nt o

possi bl e bi as. J ur or Number 4 assured t he cour t t hat hi s knowl edgeof Cora woul d not cause bi as, and he r emai ned on t he panel wi t houtobj ect i on. I n t hei r Rul e 60( b) ( 6) mot i on, appel l ant s ar gued t hat atsome poi nt af t er t he hear i ng ( no dat e i s provi ded) , t hey l ear nedt hat J uror Number 4 was i n f act a f or mer empl oyee of Cor a and wast er mi nat ed f or unsat i sf act or y wor k per f or mance, a f act t hat hef ai l ed t o di scl ose t o t he cour t . The cour t st at ed i n i t s or derdenyi ng t he Rul e 60( b) mot i on t hat whi l e J ur or Number 4 "may nothave i nf or med Pl ai nt i f f s t hat J ur or Number 4 had pur por t edknowl edge of br oken down set t l ement di scussi ons. . . i t di d putPl ai nt i f f s on not i ce t hat t hi s j ur or knew someone i nvol ved i n t hi sl i t i gat i on. " The suggest i on of t he di st r i ct cour t t hat J ur or Number

4 mi ght have been t he one who had an awar eness of t he set t l ementdi scussi ons, and per haps i nt r oduced t hat awar eness i nt o t he j ur y' sdel i ber at i ons, has no gr oundi ng i n t he r ecor d. Appel l ant s' Rul e60( b) ( 6) mot i on does not l i nk J ur or Number 4 t o t he asser t eddi scl osur e of t he set t l ement i nf or mat i on. Appel l ant s poi nt ed t o hi sr el at i onshi p wi t h Cor a as an i ndependent basi s f or t he mot i on. Theydo not pursue t hat i ndependent t heor y on appeal .

-7-


8/29

j ust i ce. " Teamst er s, Chauf f eurs, War ehousemen & Hel pers Uni on,

Local No. 59 v. Super l i ne Tr ansp. Co. , 953 F. 2d 17, 19 ( 1st Ci r .

1992) ( i nt er nal ci t at i on omi t t ed) . Rul e 60( b) r eci t es si x reasons

j ust i f yi ng r el i ef f r omf i nal j udgment . Two ar e at i ssue here. Under

Rul e 60( b) ( 3) , a di st r i ct cour t may vacat e a j udgment f or

" f r aud . . . , mi sr epr esent at i on, or mi sconduct by an opposi ng

par t y. " Fed. R. Ci v. P. 60( b) ( 3) . Rul e 60( b) ( 6) i s a cat chal l

pr ovi si on t hat pr ovi des r el i ef f or "any ot her r eason" not ot her wi se

cover ed by ( b) ( 1) - ( 5) . Fed. R. Ci v. P. 60( b) ( 6) .

The par t i es di sagree about whi ch subsect i on of Rul e 60( b)

appl i es i n t hi s case. I f t he mot i on shoul d have been br ought

pur suant t o 60( b) ( 3) , as appel l ees cont end, i t woul d be t i me- bar r ed

because t he mot i on was brought mor e than one year af t er t he ent r y

of f i nal j udgment . See Fed. R. Ci v. P. 60( c) ( 1) ( "A mot i on under

Rul e 60( b) must be made wi t hi n a r easonabl e t i me - - and f or r easons

( 1) , ( 2) , and ( 3) no mor e t han a year af t er t he ent r y of t he

j udgment or or der or t he dat e of t he pr oceedi ng. " ) . I f , as

appel l ant s argue, t he mot i on was pr oper pur suant t o Rul e 60( b) ( 6) ,

t he t i mi ng i s subj ect t o a mor e l eni ent , " r easonabl e" st andar d.

Li l j eber g v. Heal t h Ser vs. Acqui si t i on Cor p. , 486 U. S. 847, 863

( 1988) . Appel l ees ar gue t hat t he mot i on f al l s squar el y wi t hi n t he

paramet er s of subsect i on ( 3) because i t al l eged mi sconduct by t he

appel l ees. They poi nt t o appel l ant s' i nsi nuat i on i n t hei r mot i on

t hat appel l ees wer e t he l i kel y sour ce of t he set t l ement of f er

-8-


9/29

i nf or mat i on because t hey woul d have benef i t t ed f r omi t s di scl osur e

t o t he j ur y. 2

Whi l e appel l ant s suggest i n t hei r Rul e 60( b) ( 6) mot i on

t hat t he i nf ormat i on of t he set t l ement of f er coul d have been l eaked

by appel l ees, t hey do not cont end t hat appel l ees di d i n f act

pr ovi de t hi s i nf or mat i on. Rat her , t he bul k of appel l ant s' Rul e

60( b) mot i on f ocuses on t he asser t i on t hat t he j ur y was t ai nt ed by

i t s knowl edge of a conf i dent i al set t l ement of f er and t hat i t

i mpr oper l y based i t s deci si on on t hat i nf or mat i on. I n t he absence

of any pr ovi si on of Rul e 60( b) deal i ng expl i ci t l y wi t h j ur or

mi sconduct , appel l ant s' mot i on was appr opr i at el y br ought , and t he

di st r i ct cour t pr oper l y vi ewed i t , pur suant t o Rul e 60( b) ( 6) .

B. Rule 60(b)(6) Factors

Rul e 60( b) ( 6) gr ant s f eder al cour t s "br oad aut hor i t y" t o

vacate f i nal j udgment s provi ded t hat t he mot i on i s made wi t hi n a

r easonabl e t i me. Li l j eber g, 486 U. S. at 863. The Supr eme Cour t has

i nt er pr et ed Rul e 60( b) ( 6) ' s "any ot her r eason j ust i f yi ng r el i ef " as

r equi r i ng a showi ng of " ' ext r aor di nar y ci r cumst ances' suggest i ng

t hat t he par t y i s f aul t l ess i n t he del ay. " Davi l a- Al var ez v.

Escuel a de Medi ci na Uni ver si dad Cent . del Car i be, 257 F. 3d 58, 67

2 I n t hei r mot i on t o t he di st r i ct cour t appel l ant s st at ed," t her e i s an undeni abl e i nf er ence t hat t he onl y sour ces of t hi s[ set t l ement of f er ] i nf ormat i on must have been pr ovi ded by per sonswho woul d have benef i t t ed f r omt he di scl osur e of t hi s i nf or mat i on.Ther e woul d be no benef i t t o t he pl ai nt i f f by di scl osi ng t hat shehad r ej ect ed a t hr ee and a hal f mi l l i on dol l ar of f er . Conver sel y,such a di scl osur e woul d benef i t t he def ense. "

-9-


10/29

( 1st Ci r . 2001) ( quot i ng Pi oneer I nv. Ser vs. Co. v. Br unswi ck

Assocs. Lt d. P shi p, 507 U. S. 380, 393 ( 1993) ) . The hi gh t hr eshol d

r equi r ed by Rul e 60( b) ( 6) r ef l ect s t he need t o bal ance f i nal i t y of

j udgments wi t h t he need t o exami ne possi bl e f l aws i n t he j udgments.

See Paul Rever e Var i abl e Annui t y I ns. Co. v. Zang, 248 F. 3d 1, 5

( 1st Ci r . 2001) ( " ' Ther e must be an end t o l i t i gat i on someday' and

t her ef or e di st r i ct cour t s must wei gh t he r easons advanced f or

r eopeni ng t he j udgment agai nst t he desi r e t o achi eve f i nal i t y i n

l i t i gat i on. " ) ( quot i ng Acker mann v. Uni t ed St at es, 340 U. S. 193,

198 ( 1950) ) .

To bal ance t he "compet i ng pol i ci es" of f i nal i t y of

j udgment s and r esol vi ng l i t i gat i on on t he mer i t s, cour t s

consi der i ng mot i ons under Rul e 60( b) ( 6) or di nar i l y exami ne f our

f act or s: ( 1) t he mot i on' s t i mel i ness, ( 2) whet her except i onal

ci r cumst ances j ust i f y ext r aor di nar y r el i ef , ( 3) whet her t he movant

can show a pot ent i al l y mer i t or i ous cl ai m or def ense, whi ch, i f

pr oven, coul d br i ng her success at t r i al , and ( 4) t he l i kel i hood of

unf ai r pr ej udi ce t o t he opposi ng par t y. Super l i ne, 953 F. 2d at 20.

However , "[ t ] hi s compendi um i s nei t her excl usi ve nor r i gi dl y

appl i ed. Rat her , t he l i st ed f act or s ar e i ncor por at ed i nt o a

hol i st i c appr ai sal of t he ci r cumst ances. " Ungar v. Pal est i ne

Li ber at i on Or g. , 599 F. 3d 79, 83- 84 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( i nt er nal

ci t at i on omi t t ed) . "[ T] her e i s no i r oncl ad r ul e r equi r i ng an

i n- dept h, mul t i - f act or ed anal ysi s i n ever y case. Somet i mes one

-10-


11/29

f act or pr edomi nat es t o such an ext ent t hat i t i nexor abl y di ct at es

t he r esul t . " I d. at 86.

We r evi ew t he deni al of a Rul e 60( b) mot i on f or abuse of

di scr et i on. See Ahmed v. Rosenbl at t , 118 F. 3d 886, 891 ( 1st Ci r .

1997) . "Abuse occur s when a mat er i al f act or deservi ng si gni f i cant

wei ght i s i gnor ed, when an i mpr oper f act or i s r el i ed upon, or when

al l pr oper and no i mpr oper f act or s are assessed, but t he cour t

makes a ser i ous mi st ake i n wei ghi ng t hem. " I ndep. Oi l & Chem.

Worker s of Qui ncy, I nc. v. Procter & Gambl e Mf g. Co. , 864 F. 2d 927,

929 ( 1st Ci r . 1988) .

1. Timeliness

Mot i ons br ought pur suant t o Rul e 60( b) ( 6) ar e subj ect t o

a "r easonabl e" t i me l i mi t , and t he det er mi nat i on of what i s

" r easonabl e" depends upon t he ci r cumst ances of each case. See

Uni t ed St at es v. Baus, 834 F. 2d 1114, 1121 ( 1st Ci r . 1987) ( st at i ng

t hat " [ i ] n det er mi ni ng t emporal r easonabl eness under subsect i on

( 6) , we must r evi ew t he speci f i c ci r cumst ances of t he case")

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . The det er mi nat i on of what

const i t ut es a "r easonabl e" per i od of t i me r equi r es a di st r i ct cour t

t o exami ne when a movant coul d have f i l ed a Rul e 60( b) ( 6) mot i on.

See Baus, 834 F. 2d at 1121.

The di st r i ct cour t f ound appel l ant s' mot i on pushed

"agai nst t he boundar i es of r easonabl eness. " I n i t s order , t he cour t

r ef er r ed t o a per i od of ei ght een mont hs, marki ng t he t i me bet ween

-11-


12/29

t he ent r y of f i nal j udgment and the t i me when appel l ant s br ought

t hei r Rul e 60( b) ( 6) mot i on. Appel l ant s cont end t hat t he appr opr i at e

t i me f r ame f or t he di st r i ct cour t t o eval uate was t hr ee mont hs and

t hi r t een days, t he per i od f r omwhen appel l ant s f i r st l ear ned of t he

pot ent i al j ur y mi sconduct t o t he t i me t hey f i l ed t hei r Rul e

60( b) ( 6) mot i on. 3

Cour t s eval uat i ng what const i t ut es a " r easonabl e" per i od

of t i me f or pur poses of Rul e 60( b) measur e t he t i me at whi ch a

movant coul d have f i l ed hi s or her Rul e 60( b) ( 6) mot i on agai nst

when he or she di d i n f act f i l e t he mot i on. See, eg. , Kl appr ot t v.

Uni t ed St at es, 335 U. S. 601, 607- 16 ( 1949) ( hol di ng t hat a f our -

year gap was t i mel y wher e a nat ur al i zed ci t i zen sought t o set asi de

a def aul t j udgment of denat ur al i zat i on ent er ed whi l e he was i n

pr i son, i l l , and wi t hout f unds t o obt ai n counsel ) ; Cot t o v. Uni t ed

St at es, 993 F. 2d 274, 280 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) ( f i ndi ng t hat a si xt een-

mont h del ay was unr easonabl e because t he per t i nent event , a

set t l ement , occur r ed t wo mont hs af t er t he ent r y of t he or der of

di smi ssal , and appel l ant s had "no val i d excuse f or havi ng dawdl ed

an addi t i onal f our t een mont hs bef or e al er t i ng t he di st r i ct cour t t o

t he changed ci r cumst ances" ) ; Baus, 834 F. 2d at 1122 ( f i ndi ng a

f i ve- year l apse t i mel y because t he movi ng par t y had no r eason t o

3 I n hi s af f i davi t , At t or ney Anguei r a st at es t hat At t or neyMor al es i nf or med Bour et - Echevar r i a about t he al l eged j ur ormi sconduct on May 22, 2013, and t hat Bour et - Echevar r i a i nf ormedAt t or ney Anguei r a t he f ol l owi ng day. The i nf or mat i on was ul t i mat el ybr ought t o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s at t ent i on on Sept ember 4, 2013.

-12-


13/29

f i l e a Rul e 60( b) ( 6) mot i on unt i l t he opposi ng par t y changed i t s

mi nd about execut i ng on a j udgment ) . 4

The di st r i ct cour t , however , measur ed t he r easonabl eness

of appel l ant s' del ay i n br i ngi ng f or t h t hei r Rul e 60( b) ( 6) mot i on

f r omt he ent r y of f i nal j udgment , not f r omt he t i me t hat appel l ant s

f i r st l ear ned of t he al l egat i ons of j ur or mi sconduct . Dur i ng t hi s

l ess t han f our - mont h per i od, At t or ney Anguei r a was act i vel y

at t empt i ng t o obt ai n pr o hac vi ce admi ssi on t o Puer t o Ri co, and t o

acqui r e mor e i nf or mat i on t o bet t er subst ant i at e t he mot i on. He al so

was seeki ng l ocal counsel t o assi st hi m i n t he wake of At t or ney

Mor al es' s r esi gnat i on. I n addi t i on, dur i ng t hi s t i me, I r i zar r y

i nf ormed At t orney Anguei r a t hat he woul d not communi cat e wi t h hi m

wi t hout At t or ney Mor al es' s per mi ssi on. At t or ney Anguei r a t hen

at t empt ed to cont act At t or ney Mor al es, who f ai l ed to r et ur n hi s

4 Thi s f ocus on when a par t y seeki ng 60( b) ( 6) r el i ef becameawar e of t he gr ounds j ust i f yi ng t he mot i on i s f ur t her r ef l ect ed i ncases f r om a number of ot her ci r cui t s. See PRC Har r i s, I nc. v.Boei ng Co. , 700 F. 2d 894, 897 ( 2d Ci r . 1983) ( f i ndi ng a one- yeart i me l apse unt i mel y because appel l ant had f ai l ed to pr esent any"per suasi ve r easons t o j ust i f y t he del ay of al most one year i nmovi ng f or amendment " ) ; Uni t ed Stat es v. Hol t zman, 762 F. 2d 720,725 ( 9t h Ci r . 1985) ( f i ndi ng a f i ve- year del ay per mi ssi bl e wher el i t i gant r easonabl y i nt er pr et ed an i nj unct i on t o aut hor i zel i t i gant ' s conduct and t i mel y r el i ef was sought upon r ecei pt ofnot i ce t o t he cont r ar y) ; J . D. Phar m. Di st r i b. , I nc. v. SaveOn

Dr ugs & Cosmet i cs Corp. , 893 F. 2d 1201, 1207 (11t h Ci r . 1990)( r el i ef f r om j udgment gr ant ed because par t y never ser ved wi t hr equest s f or admi ssi ons or mot i on f or summary j udgment ) ; Carvaj alv. Dr ug Enf orcement Admi n. , 286 F. R. D. 23, 28 ( D. D. C. 2012)( f i ndi ng a t went y- f i ve mont h del ay unt i mel y because pl ai nt i f fwai t ed t en- mont hs af t er r ecei vi ng t he r equi si t e i nf or mat i on t o f i l et he mot i on) .

-13-


14/29

cal l . I n sum, dur i ng t he per i od bet ween when appel l ant s f i r st

l ear ned of t he al l eged mi sconduct and when t hey f i l ed t hei r Rul e

60( b) ( 6) mot i on, appel l ant s made di l i gent ef f or t s t o st r engt hen t he

basi s f or t hei r mot i on. As i n Baus, t he al l egat i ons r ef er r i ng t o

t he del ay - - namel y t hat At t or ney Anguei r a was act i vel y seeki ng pr o

hac vi ce admi ssi on t o Puer t o Ri co and that nei t her At t or ney Mor al es

nor I r i zar r y woul d speak wi t h At t or ney Anguei r a - - wer e "ver i f i ed

and uncontest ed. " 834 F. 3d at 1122.

A r easonabl eness i nqui r y eval uat es whether a movant act ed

pr ompt l y when put on not i ce of a pot ent i al cl ai m. I n maki ng i t s

det er mi nat i on that ei ght een mont hs was unr easonabl e, t he di st r i ct

cour t di d not addr ess t he f act t hat t he ear l i est appel l ant s coul d

have br ought t hei r Rul e 60( b) ( 6) mot i on was May 22, 2013, t he day

t hey l ear ned of t he pot ent i al mi sconduct . Nor di d i t r ecogni ze t hat

dur i ng t he t hr ee- mont h and t hi r t een- day per i od bef or e t he f i l i ng of

t he 60( b) mot i on, appel l ant s' counsel was act i vel y at t empt i ng t o

subst ant i at e t he mot i on and f i nd l ocal counsel wi t h whom t o

associ at e. I n f ai l i ng t o eval uat e t he appr opr i at e t i me f r ame, and

al l t hat was done by appel l ant s wi t hi n t hat t i me f r ame t o pr epar e

t o f i l e t he 60( b) mot i on, t he di st r i ct cour t commi t t ed a l egal

er r or . I n t hese ci r cumst ances, appel l ant s' t i mi ng was r easonabl e.

2. Exceptional Circumstances

Rel i ef under Rul e 60( b) ( 6) r equi r es a showi ng t hat

except i onal ci r cumst ances j ust i f y ext r aor di nar y r el i ef . Super l i ne,

-14-


15/29

953 F. 2d at 20. I f a j ur y i s awar e of and bases i t s deci si on on

knowl edge of a conf i dent i al set t l ement of f er , t her e has been a

vi ol at i on of due pr ocess. See Smi t h v. Phi l l i ps, 455 U. S. 209, 217

( 1982) ( "Due pr ocess means a j ur y capabl e and wi l l i ng t o deci de t he

case sol el y on t he evi dence bef or e i t , and a t r i al j udge ever

wat chf ul t o pr event pr ej udi ci al occur r ences and t o det er mi ne t he

ef f ect of such occur r ences when t hey happen. " ) .

I n her af f i davi t , Bour et - Echevar r i a st at ed t hat At t or ney

Moral es t ol d her t hat I r i zar r y had been i nf ormed by an empl oyer of

one of t he j ur or s t hat t he j ur y deci ded agai nst Bour et - Echevar r i a

because t hey wer e aware t hat she r ej ect ed a $3. 5 mi l l i on set t l ement

of fe r . 5 I f t hat al l egat i on of j ur or awar eness of t he conf i dent i al

5 Speci f i cal l y, Bour et - Echevar r i a descri bes t he i nt er act i onwi t h At t or ney Mor al es as f ol l ows: " I n J une 2013, I r ecei ved at el ephone cal l f r om Mr . Moral es advi si ng me t hat he had some ver yi mpor t ant i nf ormat i on t o shar e wi t h me. I was advi sed by at t orney

Mor al es t hat he had l ear ned f r om Lui s I r i zar r y t hat he hadpot ent i al evi dence suggest i ng that t here may have been i mpr operj ur y del i berat i ons i n my case. Mr . Mor al es advi sed me t hat he hadbeen t ol d by Mr . I r i zar r y t hat whi l e at t endi ng an i nspect i on on anunr el at ed case anot her i ndi vi dual had r epor t ed t o Mr . I r i zar r y t hathe empl oyed one of t he j ur or s i n my case. Thi s i ndi vi dual t ol d Mr .I r i zar r y that he had been t ol d by t hi s j ur or t hat t he r eason t hatt he j ur y deci ded agai nst me was t hat t hey di d not l i ke me and t hatt hey were awar e that I had t urned down an of f er i n t he amount of$3. 5 mi l l i on. To my under st andi ng t he of f er t hat had been made t ome was conf i dent i al and cer t ai nl y shoul d not have been pr ovi ded t oany of t he j ur or s.

Mr . Mor al es al so advi sed me t hat we needed to conduct ani nvest i gat i on i mmedi at el y t o obt ai n t hi s evi dence and r epor t i t t ot he cour t . Out of concer n, I t hen communi cat ed di r ect l y wi t h Mr .I r i zar r y and conf i r med t he i nf or mat i on r epor t ed to me by Mr .Mor al es. I t hen cont act ed Davi d Anguei r a t o di scuss t hese mat t er swi t h hi m. Mr . Anguei r a advi sed me t hat t hi s i s a mat t er r equi r i ngt he cour t ' s i nvol vement as soon as possi bl e. Mr . Anguei r a al so

-15-


16/29

set t l ement of f er i s t r ue, i t i s an except i onal ci r cumst ance t hat

mi ght j ust i f y t he ext r aor di nar y r el i ef of vacat i ng t he f i nal i t y of

a j udgment .

I n r ecogni t i on of t he due pr ocess i mpl i cat i ons of a

t ai nt ed j ur y, and t he need t o mai nt ai n j ur or pr i vacy, our l aw

pr ovi des f or t he expl or at i on of t he i nf l uence of ext r aneous

i nf or mat i on on t he del i ber at i ons of a j ur y under cont r ol l ed

ci r cumst ances. Feder al Rul e of Evi dence 606( b) st at es t hat "a j ur or

may t est i f y about whet her ext r aneous prej udi ci al i nf or mat i on was

i mpr oper l y br ought t o t he j ur y' s at t ent i on" or whet her any "out si de

i nf l uence was i mpr oper l y br ought t o bear upon any j ur or . " I f t he

exi st ence of ext er nal i nf l uences i s establ i shed t hr ough such

t est i mony, t he cour t must determi ne whether such ext r aneous

i nf or mat i on was pr ej udi ci al by det er mi ni ng i t s " pr obabl e ef f ect on

a hypot het i cal aver age j ur or . " Uni t ed St at es v. Boyl an, 898 F. 2d

230, 262 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) ( i nt er nal ci t at i on omi t t ed) ; see al so i d.

at 261 ( st at i ng t hat t her e i s a pr esumpt i on of pr ej udi ce when

asked me t o communi cat e wi t h Mr . Moral es t o aut hor i ze hi m t o shar et hi s i nf ormat i on wi t h at t or ney Anguei r a so t hat he can co- counselwi t h Mr . Mor al es and r epor t t hi s mat t er t o t he cour t . I i mmedi at el y

aut hor i zed Mr . Moral es t o di scuss t hi s mat t er wi t h my at t orney,Davi d P. Anguei r a. Af t er my communi cat i on wi t h Mr . Moral es, Ir ecei ved a not i ce of wi t hdr awal f r om hi m. I was shocked and deepl ydi st ur bed by t hi s not i ce of wi t hdr awal whi ch Mr . Mor al es had noteven di scussed wi t h me. I t hen i mmedi at el y communi cat ed t he not i ceof wi t hdr awal t o Mr . Anguei r a seeki ng hi s advi ce as t o how weshoul d pr oceed. "

-16-


17/29

"t hi r d par t y communi cat i on . . . di r ectl y i nj ects i t sel f i nt o t he

j ur y pr ocess" ) . 6

3. Potentially Meritorious Claim

"[ A] s a pr econdi t i on t o r el i ef under Rul e 60( b) , [ a

par t y] must gi ve t he t r i al cour t r eason t o bel i eve t hat vacat i ng

t he j udgment wi l l not be an empt y exer ci se . . . . ' mot i ons f or

r el i ef under Rul e 60( b) are not t o be gr ant ed unl ess t he movant can

demonst r at e a mer i t or i ous cl ai m or def ense. ' " Super l i ne, 953 F. 2d

at 20 ( quot i ng Lepkowski v. U. S. Dep' t of Treasur y, 804 F. 2d 1310,

1314 ( D. C. Ci r . 1986) ) .

Al t hough t he j ur y f ound nei t her negl i gence on t he par t of

t he CAM def endant s nor a pr oduct def ect on t he par t of Robi nson,

t hi s case had enough mer i t t o get t o t he j ur y. I f t he j ur y knew of

t he set t l ement of f er when i t r ej ect ed appel l ant s' case, we cannot

say t hat a r et r i al wi t hout t hat pr oscr i bed i nf or mat i on woul d be an

empty exer ci se.

4. Unfair Prejudice

The CAM def endant s ar gue t hat gr ant i ng appel l ant s' Rul e

60( b) ( 6) mot i on woul d unf ai r l y pr ej udi ce t hem. They woul d have t o

f l y wi t nesses i nt o Puer t o Ri co once agai n; appel l ant s coul d pr epar e

6 Boyl an i nvol ved an assessment of j ur or mi sconduct i n t hecont ext of a di r ect cr i mi nal appeal . Never t hel ess, we see no r easonwhy t hi s pr i nci pl e f or assessi ng t he si gni f i cance of j ur ormi sconduct shoul d not appl y her e wher e t he di st r i ct cour t woul d ber equi r ed t o assess what l i kel y ef f ect j ur or mi sconduct , i f any, hadon a j ur y ver di ct i n deci di ng whet her t o gr ant 60( b) ( 6) r el i ef .

-17-


18/29

t hei r case knowi ng t he def endant s' t r i al st r at egy; and j ur or s woul d

have access t o t he publ i c document s r ef er r i ng t o of f er ed set t l ement

amount s t hat si gnal an admi ssi on of gui l t .

Most of t hese cl ai ms of unf ai r pr ej udi ce appear t o be

not hi ng mor e than t he usual i nconveni ences any par t y f aces when

f or ced t o r e- l i t i gat e. See Uni t ed St at es v. One Par cel of Real

Pr op. , 763 F. 2d 181, 183 ( 5t h Ci r . 1985) ( expl ai ni ng t hat r equi r i ng

a par t y to r e- l i t i gat e an act i on does not amount t o pr ej udi ce) . We

are sympat het i c t o appel l ees' burdens. They do not , however , amount

t o unf ai r pr ej udi ce. See Coon v. Gr eni er , 867 F. 2d 73, 77 ( 1st Ci r .

1989) ( r ef usi ng t o i nf er pr ej udi ce si mpl y f r omt he passage of t i me,

and requi r i ng t he par t y al l egi ng pr ej udi ce t o i nst ead show evi dence

of speci f i c pr ej udi ce, such as death of wi t nesses, di mmed memor i es

t hat ar e beyond r ef r eshment , l oss of evi dence, or t hat some

di scover y scheme "has been t hwar t ed" ) . Fur t her mor e, we do not

under st and the CAM def endant s' concer n about j ur or access t o t he

set t l ement of f er r ef er enced i n document s now f i l ed i n t hi s case.

I nf or mat i on r egar di ng set t l ement of f er s r emai ns i nadmi ssi bl e. See

Fed. R. Evi d. 408. An appr opr i at el y f ocused voi r di r e pr ocess coul d

i dent i f y and el i mi nat e j ur or s wi t h knowl edge of any set t l ement

offers.

5. Additional Considerations

Al t hough we have now di scussed t he f our f act or s t hat we

ordi nar i l y exami ne when consi der i ng Rul e 60( b) ( 6) mot i ons, we

-18-


19/29

cannot compl et e our anal ysi s of t he di st r i ct cour t ' s appl i cat i on of

t hose f act or s t o appel l ant s' r equest f or an evi dent i ar y hear i ng

wi t hout exami ni ng t he di st r i ct cour t ' s t r eat ment of t he char ge t hat

i s at t he cor e of bot h f act or 2 ( except i onal ci r cumst ances

j ust i f yi ng ext r aor di nar y r el i ef ) and f act or 3 ( a pot ent i al l y

mer i t or i ous cl ai m) - - t he al l egat i on t hat j ur or s wer e awar e of

set t l ement di scussi ons and used t hat awar eness t o r ej ect

appel l ant s' cl ai ms agai nst def endant s. See Ungar , 599 F. 3d at 83- 84

( st at i ng t hat t he f our f actor s ar e "nei t her excl usi ve nor r i gi dl y

appl i ed, " but ar e "i ncor por at ed i nt o a hol i st i c appr ai sal of t he

ci r cumst ances") . I f t her e i s subst ance t o that al l egat i on,

appel l ant s have a wei ght y cl ai m f or 60( b) ( 6) r el i ef . I f t hat

al l egat i on i s i nsubst ant i al , t her e i s no case f or such r el i ef .

I n i t s or der denyi ng appel l ant s' mot i on, t he di st r i ct

cour t r ul ed t hat t he af f i davi t s submi t t ed by appel l ant s i n suppor t

of t hei r Rul e 60( b) ( 6) mot i on wer e "i nsuf f i ci ent t o push

Pl ai nt i f f s' cl ai ms beyond t he daunt i ng t hr eshol d r equi r ed by Rul e

60( b) , " and t hat i f t hey "wer e suf f i ci ent t o f or ce a cour t t o hol d

an evi dent i ar y hear i ng, t he cour t woul d be pot ent i al l y requi r ed i n

any ci vi l case t o gr ant an evi dent i ar y hear i ng f ol l owi ng a j ur y

ver di ct based on mere rumor s, r egar dl ess of how much t i me had

el apsed si nce j udgment . Rul e 60( b) i s not sat i sf i ed t hat easi l y. " 7

7 Ci t i ng Cot t o v. Uni t ed St at es, t he di st r i ct cour t al sost ated that "Rul e 60( b) ( 6) may not be used t o escape t heconsequences of f ai l ur e t o t ake a t i mel y appeal . " To t he extent

-19-


20/29

I n maki ng t hi s j udgment , t he di st r i ct cour t f ai l ed t o

r ecogni ze a pr oposi t i on of l aw t hat appl i es t o a di st r i ct cour t ' s

consi der at i on of al l egat i ons under l yi ng a mot i on f or Rul e 60( b) ( 6)

r el i ef . "I n t he f i r st i nst ance, an i nqui r i ng cour t shoul d assume

t he t r ut h of f act - speci f i c st at ement s cont ai ned i n a Rul e 60( b) ( 6)

mot i on. " Super l i ne, 953 F. 2d at 18. I mpor t ant por t i ons of Bour et -

Echevar r i a' s mot i on wer e f act - speci f i c.

Bour et - Echevar r i a st at es i n her af f i davi t t hat At t or ney

Mor al es i nf or med her t hat I r i zar r y had t ol d hi m t hat a j ur or ' s

empl oyer had t ol d I r i zar r y that t he j ur y deci ded agai nst Bour et -

Echevar r i a because "t hey di d not l i ke me and t hat t hey were aware

t hat I had t ur ned down an of f er i n t he amount of $3. 5 mi l l i on. "

Mor al es urged her " t o conduct an i nvest i gat i on i mmedi at el y [of t he

j ur or mi sconduct ] t o obt ai n t hi s evi dence and r epor t i t t o t he

cour t . " Bour et - Echevar r i a f ur t her st at es t hat she "communi cat ed

di r ect l y wi t h Mr . I r i zar r y and conf i r med t he i nf or mat i on r epor t ed

t o me by Mr . Mor al es. " I n l i ght of t hese "f act - speci f i c

st at ement s, " t he di st r i ct cour t was r equi r ed t o assume t hat

t hat t he cour t was suggest i ng Bour et - Echevar r i a shoul d be f aul t edf or not t aki ng a di r ect appeal f r om t he adver se deci si on of t hej ur y, such a suggest i on i s whol l y unf ai r . Bouret - Echevar r i a had noawar eness of t he al l egat i ons of j ur y mi sconduct pr i or t o J une 2013,

wel l af t er t he compl et i on of t he j ur y t r i al . Mor eover , as t o t heot her i ssues gener at ed by the j ur y t r i al , Anguei r a expl ai ned i n hi saf f i davi t why t hese i ssues di d not r esul t i n an appeal : "Ideter mi ned based upon my r evi ew [ of t he t r i al pr oceedi ngs] t hatt her e wer e i nsuf f i ci ent gr ounds upon whi ch t o f i l e an appeal . "Bour et - Echevar r i a cannot be f aul t ed f or decl i ni ng t o appeal whenher at t or ney t ol d her t her e wer e i nsuf f i ci ent gr ounds t o do so.

-20-


21/29

At t or ney Mor al es r epor t ed t he pot ent i al mi sconduct t o Bour et -

Echevar r i a and t hat I r i zar r y conf i r med t he r epor t t o Bour et -

Echevar r i a. Super l i ne, 953 F. 2d at 18. These act i ons by her

at t or ney and an exper t wi t ness who test i f i ed i n t he t r i al of her

cl ai ms ( t hese ar e not r andom peopl e) r ef l ect ed t hei r bel i ef

i ni t i al l y t hat t he r epor t s of j ur or mi sconduct wer e subst ant i al

enough t o mer i t f ur t her i nvest i gat i on. These f act - speci f i c por t i ons

of Bour et - Echevar r i a' s mot i on coul d not be di smi ssed as mer e rumor .

They had a pr obat i ve wei ght t hat t he di st r i ct cour t i gnor ed.

To be sur e, whether j ur or mi sconduct i n f act occur r ed

was, as t he di st r i ct cour t put i t , onl y a "r umor . " Ther e wer e

l ayer s of hear say i n t he r epor t of j ur or mi sconduct : an

uni dent i f i ed par t y t el l i ng I r i zar r y t hat one of t he par t y' s

empl oyees, al so uni dent i f i ed, was a j ur or i n Bour et - Echevar r i a' s

t r i al , and t hat t hi s j ur or t ol d t he uni dent i f i ed par t y t hat t he

j ur y decl i ned t o awar d appel l ant any money damages because t hey

knew she had been of f er ed and r ej ect ed a $3. 5 mi l l i on set t l ement .

Or di nar i l y, t he di st r i ct cour t woul d be r i ght t hat such r umor s,

despi t e the concer ns t hat t hey engender ed i n Mor al es and I r i zar r y,

woul d not j ust i f y an evi dent i ar y hear i ng. Her e, however , t he

di str i ct cour t f ai l ed t o appr eci at e t he cr i t i cal f act t hat

appel l ant s coul d not obt ai n f act - speci f i c st at ement s beyond t he

r epor t s of Mor al es and I r i zar r y i n r equest i ng an evi dent i ar y

hear i ng.

-21-


22/29

At t or ney Mor al es r ef used t o t al k to At t or ney Anguei r a,

and I r i zar r y, t he exper t wi t ness, r ef used t o t al k t o At t or ney

Anguei r a wi t hout At t or ney Mor al es' s per mi ssi on. Wi t hout t al ki ng t o

I r i zar r y, appel l ant s coul d not f i nd out who the empl oyer was who

spoke t o I r i zar r y about t he j ur or / empl oyee who r epor t ed t he j ur y

mi sconduct . Al t hough At t orney Anguei r a coul d det ermi ne f r om cour t

r ecor ds t he names of al l of t he j ur or s who par t i ci pat ed i n t he

t r i al , he coul d not cont act t hose j ur or s di r ect l y because Local

Rul e 47( d) of t he Di st r i ct Cour t Rul es of Puer t o Ri co st at es,

"Counsel and par t i es shal l r ef r ai n f r om any post - ver di ct

communi cat i on wi t h j ur or s except under super vi si on of t hi s cour t . "8

I n shor t , t he di str i ct cour t unf ai r l y f aul t ed appel l ant s f or

f ai l i ng t o subst ant i at e al l egat i ons of j ur or mi sconduct t hat t hey

coul d not subst ant i at e because of t he r ef usal of t he cr i t i cal

wi t nesses t o speak t o t hem and because of cour t r ul es t hat bar r ed

avenues of i nvest i gat i on.

Al t hough we dr aw no concl usi ve i nf er ences f r om t he

r ef usal of At t or ney Mor al es and exper t wi t ness I r i zar r y t o r espond

t o At t or ney Anguei r a, we f i nd t he sudden wal l of si l ence por t r ayed

by At t or ney Anguei r a' s af f i davi t t r oubl i ng. I r i zar r y t hought enough

8 We not e t hat post - ver di ct cont act wi t h j ur or s i s pr ohi bi t edi n t he Fi r st Ci r cui t gener al l y. See Uni t ed St at es v. Kepr eos, 759F. 2d 961, 967 ( 1st Ci r . 1985) ( "We st ar t wi t h t he pr oposi t i on t hathencef or t h t hi s Ci r cui t pr ohi bi t s t he post - ver di ct i nt er vi ew ofj ur or s by counsel , l i t i gant s or t hei r agent s except under t hesuper vi si on of t he di st r i ct cour t , and t hen onl y i n suchext r aor di nar y si t uat i ons as ar e deemed appr opr i at e. " ) .

-22-


23/29

of t he r epor t of j ur or mi sconduct t o r epor t i t t o At t or ney Mor al es.

At t or ney Mor al es, i n t ur n, t hought enough of i t t o i nf or m hi s

cl i ent , Bour et - Echevar r i a, al ong wi t h t he admoni t i on t hat "we

needed t o conduct an i nvest i gat i on i mmedi at el y t o obt ai n t hi s

evi dence and r epor t i t t o t he cour t . " Then, when Bour et -

Echevar r i a' s new at t or ney t r i ed t o t al k t o At t or ney Mor al es and

I r i zar r y, t hey suddenl y ref used t o cooper ate. They may have had

good r easons f or t hei r si l ence, or i mpr oper r easons. Wi t hout an

evi dent i ary hear i ng, t her e i s no way t o know.

Hence we agr ee wi t h appel l ant s t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

"shoul d have convened an evi dent i ary hear i ng, quest i oned potent i al

( non- j ur or ) wi t nesses, i ncl udi ng Mr . I r i zar r y and t he j ur or ' s

empl oyer , r egardi ng t hei r knowl edge of t he i nf or mat i on cont ai ned i n

Appel l ant s' mot i on. " That l i mi t ed evi dent i ar y hear i ng woul d be

suf f i ci ent t o det er mi ne t he val i di t y of I r i zar r y' s cl ai m t hat t he

empl oyer had been t ol d by hi s empl oyee, who was a j uror i n

appel l ant s' t r i al , t hat t he j ur y i n t hat t r i al had become awar e of

a set t l ement of f er t o t he appel l ant s t hat t hey had r ej ect ed. I f

t hose al l egat i ons wer e subst ant i at ed t o t he cour t ' s sat i sf act i on,

i t coul d t hen deci de i f t he evi dent i ar y hear i ng shoul d be expanded

t o i ncl ude any j ur or s. 9

9 I n maki ng t hi s deci si on, t he di st r i ct cour t woul d have t oconsi der Feder al Rul e of Evi dence 606( b) ( 2) ( A) , whi ch per mi t s aj ur or t o t est i f y about whether "ext r aneous pr ej udi ci al i nf or mat i onwas i mpr oper l y br ought t o t he j ur y' s at t ent i on. " I n appl yi ng606( b) ( 2) ( A) , we have pr evi ousl y st at ed t hat a cour t shoul d onl y

-23-


24/29

We r ecogni ze t hat any such i nqui r y of t he j ur ors woul d be

a si gni f i cant st ep. Concer ns f or j ur or pr i vacy ar e al ways

si gni f i cant . Yet , i mpor t ant l y, Local Rul e 47( d) woul d per mi t such

f ur t her i nqui r y under t he cour t ' s super vi si on. I f t hi s cont r ol l ed

i nqui r y est abl i shed t hat j ur ors had become aware of a set t l ement

of f er whi l e consi der i ng a ver di ct , t he di st r i ct cour t woul d t hen

have t he f act s i t needed t o f ai r l y and appr opr i at el y deci de t he

r equest f or 60( b) ( 6) r el i ef .

III.

We hol d t hat t he di st r i ct cour t abused i t s di scret i on i n

denyi ng appel l ant s' Rul e 60( b) ( 6) mot i on because i t made t hr ee

mi st akes i n wei ghi ng t he f act or s r el evant t o a r equest f or r el i ef

under Rul e 60( b) ( 6) . Speci f i cal l y, i t f ai l ed t o i dent i f y t he pr oper

t i me f r ame f or eval uat i ng t he r easonabl eness of t he l apse of t i me

bef or e appel l ant s f i l ed t he mot i on; i t f ai l ed t o assume t he t r ut h

conduct an i nqui r y i nt o whet her such i nf ormat i on was i mpr oper l ybr ought t o t he at t ent i on of a j ur y when t her e i s " subst ant i al andi ncont r over t i bl e evi dence t hat a speci f i c, nonspecul at i vei mpr opr i et y has occur r ed. " Uni t ed St at es v. Connol l y, 341 F. 3d 16,34 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ( i nt er nal ci t at i on omi t t ed) . I n t he pr esentcase, t he di st r i ct cour t coul d onl y make such j udgment s af t er i tconduct ed an evi dent i ar y hear i ng, f i r st quest i oni ng I r i zar r y aboutt he r epor t t hat he had been t ol d by an uni dent i f i ed empl oyer ofj ur or mi sconduct i n Bouret - Echevar r i a' s t r i al . I f I r i zar r yconf i r med t he r epor t , t he j ur or ' s empl oyer coul d be cal l ed. I f t he

empl oyer conf i r med hi s conver sat i on wi t h t he j ur or , t he j ur or coul dbe cal l ed. I f t hese i nqui r i es conf i r med t hat a basi s f or t he j ur y' sdeci si on was t hei r knowl edge t hat Echevar r i a rej ect ed a set t l ementof f er , t he cour t woul d have "subst ant i al and i ncont r over t i bl eevi dence t hat a speci f i c, nonspecul at i ve i mpr opr i et y has occur r ed"and woul d t her ef or e have a basi s f or quest i oni ng t he j ur or s f ur t herpur suant t o 606( b) ( 2) ( A) .

-24-


25/29

of , and accor d appr opr i at e pr obat i ve wei ght t o, t he f act - speci f i c

st at ement s cont ai ned i n Bour et - Echevar r i a' s and At t or ney Anguei r a' s

af f i davi t s t hat Mor al es and I r i zar r y had bot h i nf or med her of

r epor t s of j ur or mi sconduct i n her t r i al whi ch t hey bel i eved

mer i t ed f ur t her i nvest i gat i on; and i t unf ai r l y f aul t ed appel l ant

f or f ai l i ng t o el evat e these r epor t s of j ur or mi sconduct beyond t he

r eal m of r umor when, under t he unusual ci r cumst ances her e, she

coul d not do so wi t hout an evi dent i ar y hear i ng. See I ndep. Oi l &

Chem. Wor ker s of Qui ncy, I nc. , 864 F. 2d at 929 ( st at i ng t hat

" [ a] buse occur s when a mat er i al f act or deser vi ng si gni f i cant wei ght

i s i gnor ed, when an i mpr oper f act or i s r el i ed upon, or when al l

pr oper and no i mpr oper f actors are assessed, but t he cour t makes a

ser i ous mi st ake i n wei ghi ng t hem. " ) .

I n f i ndi ng an abuse of di scr et i on, we under st and t hat

gr ant i ng an evi dent i ar y hear i ng i n t he cont ext of a r equest f or

60( b) ( 6) r el i ef cr eat es t empor ar y uncer t ai nt y about t he f i nal i t y of

a j udgment . However , t hat f i nal i t y remai ns unt i l t he cour t act ual l y

vacat es t he j udgment . The evi dent i ary hear i ng does not undo i t .

I nst ead, t he hear i ng onl y per mi t s t he gr ound f or vacat i ng t he

j udgment - - j ur or mi sconduct - - t o be f ai r l y assessed, f i r st wi t h

t he pr el i mi nar y i nqui r i es descr i bed above, and t hen wi t h t he

quest i oni ng of j ur or s i f t he cour t ' s f i ndi ngs j ust i f y i t .

We do not mi ni mi ze the i mpor t ance of f i nal i t y of

j udgments or pr ot ect i ng t he pr i vacy of j ur or s. Yet we must al so

-25-


26/29

consi der t he due pr ocess val ues i mpl i cat ed by j ur y del i ber at i ons

f r ee of ext r aneous i nf l uences. I ndeed, Rul e 60( b) ( 6) exi st s, i n

par t , t o pr ot ect such val ues, and, i n so doi ng, t o "accompl i sh

j ust i ce. " Kl appr ot t , 335 U. S. at 601 ( st at i ng 60( b) ( 6) "vest s power

i n cour t s adequat e t o enabl e t hemt o vacat e j udgment s whenever such

act i on i s appr opr i at e t o accompl i sh j ust i ce") . I nescapabl y, t her e

i s a t ensi on her e bet ween t he val ues of f i nal i t y and due pr ocess.

The conduct of t he evi dent i ar y hear i ng sought by appel l ant s i s t he

onl y f ai r and sensi bl e way t o accommodate t hat t ensi on.

Never t hel ess, i nf l uenced by the er r or s i n l aw and

j udgment t hat we have i dent i f i ed, t he di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he

r equest f or an evi dent i ar y hear i ng, and t her eby concl uded t hat t he

val ue of due pr ocess must necessar i l y be sacr i f i ced f or t he val ue

of f i nal i t y. That f l awed r ul i ng was an abuse of di scr et i on. We

t her ef or e vacat e t he di st r i ct cour t ' s or der denyi ng t he r equest f or

an evi dent i ary hear i ng and r emand f or a hear i ng whose scope and

conduct shal l be det er mi ned by t he di st r i ct cour t i n conf or mi t y

wi t h t hi s opi ni on.

So or der ed. Cost s t o appel l ant s.

-Dissenting Opinion Follows-

-26-


27/29

BARRON, Circuit Judge, dissenting. The maj or i t y suggest s

t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t er r ed i n assessi ng t he t i mel i ness of t he

Rul e 60( b) mot i on and i n f ai l i ng t o gi ve suf f i ci ent cr edence t o t he

al l egat i ons cont ai ned i n t he suppor t i ng af f i davi t s. But any er r or

i n t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s t r eat ment of t he t i mel i ness of t he mot i on

cannot war r ant r ever sal because t he Di st r i ct Cour t di d not r est t he

deni al sol el y on t hat basi s. We t hus may r ever se onl y i f t he

Di st r i ct Cour t er r ed i n how i t r esponded t o the subst ance of t he

al l egat i on cont ai ned i n t he af f i davi t s t hat t he j ur y was exposed t o

a set t l ement of f er . I do not see, however , how t he Di st r i ct Cour t

er r ed i n t hat r egar d.

As t he maj or i t y not es, a di st r i ct cour t i s r equi r ed t o

assume " t he t r ut h of f act - speci f i c st at ement s cont ai ned i n" a Rul e

60( b) mot i on. See Teamst er s, Chauf f eur s, War ehousemen & Hel per s

Uni on, Local No. 59 v. Super l i ne Tr ansp. Co. , 953 F. 2d 17, 18 ( 1st

Ci r . 1992) . The Di st r i ct Cour t was t hus obl i ged t o t ake as t r ue

t hat a r epor t of j ur or mi sconduct r eached t he pet i t i oner Bour et - -

not t hat t he j ur or made t he r epor t , or even t hat t he j ur or ' s

empl oyer passed t he r epor t t o t he exper t wi t ness I r i zar r y. But

t hat bei ng al l t hat must - - or even l egal l y can - - be t aken as

t r ue, I do not see what t he Di st r i ct Cour t di d wr ong. The maj or i t y

i t sel f descr i bes t he j ur y' s pur por t ed exposur e t o t he set t l ement

of f er as a " r umor " r est i ng on " l ayer s of hear say. " Maj . Op. 20.

-27-


28/29

The j udge' s i mpl i ci t char act er i zat i on of t he al l egat i on as a "mer e

r umor [ ] " was t hus ent i r el y accur at e.

Of cour se, t her e r emai ns t he i ssue whet her t he Di st r i ct

Cour t exer ci sed i t s di scr et i on unr easonabl y when i t r ef used t o

i nvest i gat e t he r umor f ur t her . The maj or i t y suggest s t hat t he

r epor t s of t he r umor set f or t h i n t he af f i davi t s wer e suf f i ci ent l y

" t r oubl i ng" t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t shoul d have under t aken f ur t her

i nvest i gat i on gi ven t he di f f i cul t y t he pet i t i oner woul d have had i n

subst ant i at i ng t he r umor . But t he cor e al l egat i on - - namel y, t hat

j ur or s became awar e of set t l ement di scussi ons and used t hi s

awar eness t o r ej ect Bour et ' s cl ai ms agai nst t he def endant s - - was

an "unsubst ant i at ed concl usi on[ ] " r est i ng on i ndi r ect sour ces.

Super l i ne, 953 F. 2d at 18. And I do not bel i eve a di f f er ent vi ew

about how di scr et i on shoul d be exer ci sed i n t he f ace of a pet i t i on

based on such an unsubst ant i at ed r umor - - made wel l af t er a f i nal

ver di ct - - suppl i es a suf f i ci ent r eason t o concl ude t hat di scret i on

-28-


29/29

was abused or exerci sed unr easonabl y. 10 As a r esul t , I r espect f ul l y

di ssent .

10 Ther e i s no pr ecedent beyond Super l i ne t hat el aborateson t he showi ng t hat a par t y must make t o r equi r e a di st r i ct cour t

t o hol d an evi dent i ar y hear i ng i n ci r cumst ances aki n t o t hosepr esent ed her e. But anal ogous pr ecedent f r omt he cr i mi nal cont ext- - whi ch t he maj or i t y al so t akes t o be r el evant - - seems t o me t osuppor t t he concl usi on t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t had consi der abl edi scr et i on t o make t he cal l i t made. See Uni t ed St at es v.Connol l y, 341 F. 3d 16, 34 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ( "A cour t shoul d onl yconduct such an i nqui r y when ' r easonabl e gr ounds f or i nvest i gat i onexi st , ' i . e. , ' t her e i s cl ear , st r ong, substant i al andi ncont r over t i bl e evi dence t hat a speci f i c, nonspecul at i vei mpr opr i et y has occur r ed whi ch coul d have pr ej udi ced t he t r i al ofa def endant . ' " ( quot i ng Uni t ed St ates v. Sun Myung Moon, 718 F. 2d1210, 1234 ( 2d Ci r . 1983) ) ) ; see al so, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v.

Vi l l ar , 586 F. 3d 76, 88 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( "[ T] he di st r i ct j udge i si n t he best posi t i on t o make t he i ni t i al j udgment . I f i n t hi s casehe t hi nks f ur t her i nqui r y appr opr i at e, he i s f r ee t opr oceed . . . . ") ; Uni t ed St at es v. Mi kut owi cz, 365 F. 3d 65, 75( 1st Ci r . 2004) ( t he Di st r i ct Cour t "act ed wi t hi n i t s consi der abl edi scr et i on by decl i ni ng t o i nvest i gat e" when conf r ont ed wi t h aspecul at i ve cl ai m of mi sconduct dur i ng t r i al ) ; Mahoney v.Vonder gr i t t , 938 F. 2d 1490, 1493 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) ( f i ndi ng t hat af ul l hear i ng "woul d have been pr emat ur e" where "t he j udge was f acedonl y wi t h i mpr essi oni st i c concer ns about i mpr opr i et i es") ; i d. at1492 ( "Whet her or not t he vague al l egat i ons i n t he j ur or ' s l et t erwer e enough t o r equi r e any response by t he t r i al cour t , i t i s

evi dent t hat her unf ocused, unswor n asser t i ons demanded no mor et han t he pr el i mi nar y i nqui r y t hat t he j udge agr eed t o conduct . "( f oot not e omi t t ed) ) ; Ner on v. Ti er ney, 841 F. 2d 1197, 1205 ( 1stCi r . 1988) ( "The casel aw, as we r ead i t , f ul l y suppor t s t heconcl usi on t hat a convi ct ed def endant cannot l ay cl ai m t o aconst i t ut i onal r i ght t o cross- quest i on j ur or s i n t he absence of anadequat e evi dent i ar y pr edi cat e. " ) .

-29-

Bouret-Echevarria v. Caribbean Aviation Maintenance, 1st Cir. (2015)

Documents

Transcript of Bouret-Echevarria v. Caribbean Aviation Maintenance, 1st Cir. (2015)