West v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.
803 F.3d 56
1st Cir.2015Background
- Kurt West, a Bell 407 pilot, experienced an in-flight engine flameout in December 2008; he sued Bell, Rolls-Royce, and GPECS alleging an electronic-control (FOSSA) cause; defendants blamed ice ingestion.
- At trial the jury returned a defense verdict; West later moved for a new trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) and (3) after Rolls‑Royce and Bell issued Bulletins describing an FAA/TC‑approved overspeed adapter to reduce false overspeed activations (FOSSA).
- West argued the Bulletins revealed a circuit design defect and that defendants had withheld responsive discovery about the investigation and fix, amounting to discovery misconduct under Rule 60(b)(3).
- The district court denied West’s Rule 60(b)(3) motion, assuming arguendo that defendants culpably withheld documents but requiring West (not defendants) to prove by a preponderance that the nondisclosure substantially interfered with his trial preparation.
- The First Circuit concluded the district court misapplied the Anderson v. Cryovac burden‑shifting framework and remanded for further proceedings on West’s Rule 60(b)(3) motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court applied the correct burden‑shift under Rule 60(b)(3)/Anderson when it assumed culpable nondisclosure | West: Once the court assumes defendants knowingly suppressed discoverable material, Anderson creates a rebuttable presumption that the suppression substantially interfered with his trial and shifts the burden to defendants to show inconsequentiality | Defendants: The Bulletins added no new cause of FOSSA and disclosed nothing West did not already know; West must show nondisclosure changed the trial outcome | Court: District court erred. After assuming culpable withholding, judge should have applied Anderson’s presumption and shifted the burden to defendants to rebut by clear and convincing evidence; remand required |
| Whether defendants’ investigation/materials were discoverable and whether their deliberate nonproduction supports a presumption of substantial interference | West: Documents about the adapters, testing, and development process were responsive to his Rule 34 requests and defendants’ deliberate nonproduction supports a presumption of substantial interference | Defendants: Information was preliminary/not required to be produced or was superseded by later targeted requests; alternatively, the Bulletins are not newly‑discovered evidence that would have affected the verdict | Court: The record does not resolve responsiveness; district court must determine on remand whether responsive documents existed and, if so, whether deliberate withholding occurred—if so, presumption of substantial interference may arise (defendants can rebut) |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Cryovac, 862 F.2d 910 (1st Cir. 1988) (establishes Rule 60(b)(3) framework: failure to disclose discovery may be ‘‘misconduct’’ and, if concealment is knowing, a rebuttable presumption of substantial interference arises, shifting burden to withholder)
- Nansamba v. N. Shore Med. Ctr., Inc., 727 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2013) (Rule 60(b) motions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81 (1996) (a district court abuses discretion when it makes an error of law)