Ira Green, Inc. v. Military Sales & Service Co.
775 F.3d 12
| 1st Cir. | 2014Background
- Green, a Rhode Island corp., sued MilSal for tortious interference and defamation after MilSal allegedly diverted Brigade’s suppliers and encroached on Green’s AAFES business.
- MilSal hired Cliff Vaughn and gained Brigade’s confidential pricing data to woo Brigade suppliers, causing Green’s orders to be redirected to others.
- AAFES began ordering directly from suppliers like Darling, reducing Green’s replenishment orders and prompting Green’s STORM SAF marketing response.
- Trial spanned eight days; the jury found no damages on defamation, and MilSal prevailed on tortious interference; the district court entered an amended judgment favoring MilSal.
- Green later learned MilSal paid over $10,000 in counsel fees to secure a key Darling witness; Green moved for new trial and challenged the district court’s rulings.
- District court denied Green’s new-trial motion, MilSal amended the judgment to reflect MilSal’s defamation win, and costs were taxed to Green; Green appeals on multiple grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury poll timing and waiver under Rule 48(c) | Green sought a juror poll but did not renew after verdict reporting | MilSal contends Green waived/forfeited the right by silence | Waiver (or forfeiture) of poll rights affirmed; no reversible error found. |
| Admission of Exhibit L-3 and related hearsay issues | Exhibit L-3 was improperly admitted to prove truth of 2011 test results | Evidence offered for non-hearsay purposes or as business records | Exhibit L-3 admissible as harmless error; no reversal. |
| Defamation per se instruction and product disparagement ruling | Statements about Storm SAF implied dishonesty or incompetence in Green's business | Disparagement, not defamation per se; no injury shown for per se claim | Court correctly refused defamation per se instruction; Storm SAF disparagement actions were not per se defaming. |
| District court’s amendment of judgment and damages finding | Amendment improperly shifted damages or corrected errors | Amendment aligned with Rule 59(e) grounds; damages element required for defamation | Judgment amended within discretion; MilSal’s damages finding supported by record. |
| Award of costs to MilSal in light of mixed outcomes | Green partially prevailed on counterclaims; costs should not be awarded to MilSal | Overall victory to MilSal; costs appropriate under Rule 54(d)(1) given predominant outcome | Costs awarded to MilSal; district court’s decision not an abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Audette v. Isaksen Fishing Corp., 789 F.2d 956 (1st Cir. 1986) (jury poll right; civil context discretionary)
- Casillas-Díaz v. Palau, 463 F.3d 77 (1st Cir. 2006) (standard for reviewing new-trial motions; abuse of discretion)
- Greensleeves v. Smiley, 68 A.3d 425 (R.I. 2013) (defining improper purpose and justification in tortious interference)
- Verser v. Barfield, 741 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2013) (jury-polling rule and harmless-error considerations)
- National Ref. Co. v. Benzo Gas Motor Fuel Co., 20 F.2d 763 (8th Cir. 1927) (defamation/product disparagement distinctions)
- Wilson v. Mar. Overseas Corp., 150 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1998) (instructional error review; burden-shifting framework)