Thomas v. City of New York
293 F.R.D. 498
S.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Thomas, a §1983 plaintiff, alleges false arrest and excessive force by police after a December 20, 2008 incident.
- Trial occurred June–July 2012; Marrow, Thomas’s then-girlfriend, testified for Thomas.
- The verdict awarded Thomas damages against Kelly for false arrest and against Kelly, Dekoker, and MeAuliffe for excessive force; nominal/punitive damages followed.
- After verdict, the court denied JMOL/new trial but reduced punitive damages to $325,000.
- Plaintiff later disclosed a contract (Agreement) between Thomas and Marrow, executed during trial, promising Marrow 20% of any recovery and fee-shifting provisions.
- Defendants moved under Rule 60(b)(3) to vacate or grant a new trial based on this concealed witness agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60(b)(3) relief is warranted | Thomas argues no misconduct; contract discovery was inadvertent | Defendants argue concealment was intentional and material | Yes; relief granted due to intentional misconduct and substantial interference. |
| Whether misconduct substantially interfered with Defendants’ case | Agreement did not affect credibility disclosure | Agreement concealed testifying incentives biased the trial | Yes; presumption of substantial interference applies. |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was proper | Not warranted given 60(b) remedy | Seeking dismissal as sanction | No; dismissal denied; new trial appropriate. |
| Whether a new trial should be ordered rather than other relief | New trial essential to correct unfairness | New trial appropriate to address misconduct | New trial granted; verdict vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Metso Minerals v. Powerscreen Int'l Distrib. Ltd., 833 F.Supp.2d 282 (E.D.N.Y.2011) (witness compensation not dispositive when central issue already known)
- Caldwell v. Cablevision Systems Corp., 20 N.Y.3d 365 (N.Y. 2013) (public policy issues with witness payment; not controlling here)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S.133 (S. Ct.2000) (credibility determinations are jury’s function)
- Anderson v. Beatrice Foods Co., 127 F.R.D. 1 (D. Mass.1989) (misconduct may presume impact on preparation; rebuttable)