889 F.3d 233
5th Cir.2018Background
- Vanity Benson sued Tyson Foods under the ADA alleging disability; a jury returned a defense verdict on October 14, 2016.
- Benson did not move for judgment as a matter of law at trial; final judgment entered December 8, 2016.
- Nearly three months after dismissal, Benson’s counsel sought leave to interview jurors post-trial and moved for a new trial, arguing the jury ignored evidence of disability.
- The district court denied both the motion for a new trial and the request to interview jurors; Benson appealed.
- Trial record included testimony that Benson’s foot had healed and required no further treatment, Benson’s admission she could play basketball and hold standing jobs, and admissions undermining her credibility.
- The district court applied Fifth Circuit precedent denying post-trial juror interviews on First Amendment grounds; the panel affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion in denying motion for new trial (Rule 59) | Benson argued the jury ignored evidence that she was disabled and verdict was unsupported | Tyson argued there was ample evidence to support verdict that Benson was not disabled | Denied: no abuse of discretion; sufficient evidence supported verdict |
| Whether counsel may interview jurors post-trial over Local Rule 47(b) / First Amendment challenge | Benson’s counsel sought juror interviews to learn what influenced the verdict and improve advocacy; framed as First Amendment/professional speech interest | Tyson/district court relied on precedent protecting juror privacy and well-administered justice; Local Rule required leave | Denied: under controlling Fifth Circuit precedent the jurors’ privacy and administration interests outweigh counsel’s interest; district court did not err (panel notes Haeberle binds but questions aspects of it) |
Key Cases Cited
- Haeberle v. Texas International Airlines, 739 F.2d 1019 (5th Cir. 1984) (attorney/public First Amendment interest in post-trial juror interviews outweighed by juror privacy and justice administration)
- Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (U.S. 1972) (No special First Amendment access rights for press beyond the public)
- Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (U.S. 1991) (lawyers’ speech may be subject to greater regulation given role as officers of the court)
- Clyma v. Sunoco, Inc., 594 F.3d 777 (10th Cir. 2010) (district court must meaningfully exercise discretion when denying juror-contact requests under local rule)
- Sam’s Style Shop v. Cosmos Broad. Corp., 694 F.2d 998 (5th Cir. 1982) (no abuse of discretion for jury-verdict review unless complete absence of supporting evidence)
- Lincoln v. Case, 340 F.3d 283 (5th Cir. 2003) (standard of review for denial of new trial is abuse of discretion)