Starbuck v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

• Decision Date: 04 May 2015
• Docket Number: No. 3:09–CV–13250.,3:09–CV–13250.
• Citation: 102 F.Supp.3d 1281
• Parties: William STARBUCK, Plaintiff, v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, Individually and as Successor By Merger to the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, and Philip Morris USA Inc., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

102 F.Supp.3d 1281

William STARBUCK, Plaintiff,
v.
R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, Individually and as Successor By Merger to the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, and Philip Morris USA Inc., Defendants.

No. 3:09–CV–13250.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division.

Signed May 4, 2015.

102 F.Supp.3d 1282

Charlie Easa Farah, Jr., Farah & Farah, PA, Jacksonville, FL, Donald A. Migliori, Elizabeth S. Smith, Frederick C. Baker, James W. Ledlie, Joseph F. Rice, Lance V. Oliver, Lisa M. Saltzburg, Nathan D. Finch, Rebecca M. Deupree, Robert T. Haefele, Vincent I. Parrett, Motley Rice, LLC, Mount Pleasant, SC, Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Jerome Mayer–Cantu, Jordan Elias, Martin D. Quinones, Richard M. Heimann, Sarah R. London, Todd A. Walburg, Robert J. Nelson, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Janna B. McNicholas, Norwood Sherman Wilner, Richard J. Lantinberg, Stephanie J. Hartley, The Wilner Firm, PA, Jacksonville, FL, John T. Spragens, Kathryn E. Barnett, Kenneth S. Byrd, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Nashville, TN, Mathew Jasinski, Michael J. Pendell, Motley Rice, LLC, Hartford, CT, for Plaintiff.

Dana G. Bradford, II, Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP, Jacksonville, FL, David M. Monde, Emily Baker, Stephanie E. Parker, John Fachet Yarber, Jones Day, Atlanta, GA, David Clifford Reeves, Jeffrey Alan Yarbrough, Joseph W. Prichard, Jr., Robert B. Parrish, Moseley, Prichard, Parrish, Knight & Jones, Jacksonville, FL, Edward M. Carter, Jones Day, Columbus, OH, James B. Murphy, Jr., Terri L. Parker, Bonnie C. Daboll, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Tampa, FL, Jose A. Isasi, II, Jones Day, Chicago, IL, Joshua Reuben Brown, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Orlando, FL, Kevin P. Riddles, Jones Day, Cleveland, OH, Khalil Gharbieh, Geoffrey Jonathan Michael, Judith Bernstein–Gaeta, M. Sean Laane, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Washington, DC, Alexandra Bach Lagos, Eileen Tilghman Moss, Hassia T. Ibrahim Diolombi, William P. Geraghty, Andrew W. Beyer, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Miami, FL, Andrew Chang, Tiffany F. Lim, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Dale M. Johnson, II,

102 F.Supp.3d 1283

Stanley D. Davis, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Kansas City, MO, Dana G. Bradford, II, Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP, Jacksonville, FL, Keri L. Arnold, Arnold & Porter, LLP, New York, NY, Nathan D. Foster, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Denver, CO, Peter M. Henk, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Houston, TX, Giselle Gonzalez Manseur, Kelly Anne Luther, Maria Helena Ruiz, Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP, Miami, FL, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS

MARK W. BENNETT, District Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION 1284

A.	Procedural Background	1284
B.	Factual Background	1285

1.	Evolution of the jury instruction on “addiction”	1285
2.	Evidence on “addiction”	1287
3.	Juror access to dictionary definitions of “addiction”	1290

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS 1292

A. Starbuck's Motion For New Trial 1292

1.	Overview of grounds for a new trial	1292
2.	Juror misconduct	1294

a.	Arguments of the parties	1294
b.	The need for an evidentiary hearing	1295
c.	The merits of the contention	1297

i.	Applicable standards	1297
ii.	Analysis	1301

3. Verdict against the great weight of th e evidence 1303

a.	Arguments of the parties	1303
b.	Applicable standards	1303
c.

...