Klayman v. Judicial Watch, Inc., Civil Action No. 06-670 (CKK)
| Decision Date | 18 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 06-670 (CKK) |
| Parties | LARRY KLAYMAN, Plaintiff, v. JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
After a thirteen-day trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendant Judicial Watch, Inc. ("Judicial Watch") on each of Plaintiff Larry Klayman's remaining claims. Moreover, the jury found liability and awarded a total of $2.8 million in damages to Counter-Plaintiffs Judicial Watch and Thomas J. Fitton on their extant counterclaims against Counter-Defendant Klayman.
Klayman now renews his motion for judgment as a matter of law, moves for a new trial, and moves in the alternative for remittitur of the jury's verdict. ECF No. 571 ("Post-Trial Motions"). Also pending are Klayman's motion for sanctions and entry of judgment, as well as his post-trial "renewal" of that motion and Judicial Watch's and Fitton's motion to strike the renewed version. ECF Nos. 489, 572, 573.
Klayman asks the Court's indulgence of one or more excess pages in both the opening and reply briefs of his Post-Trial Motions. ECF No. 571, at ii; ECF No. 577. In each instance he attempted to confer with Judicial Watch's and Fitton's counsel, who either opposed a penultimate version of his request or did not respond in time. Because the corresponding briefs were timelyfiled, and they assist in the Court's review of Klayman's Post-Trial Motions, the Court shall GRANT both requests and consider the briefs in their entirety.
Upon consideration of the briefing,2 the relevant legal authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court DENIES Klayman's Post-Trial Motions, DENIES Klayman's Motion for Sanctions and Entry of Judgment, DENIES Klayman's Renewed Motion for Sanctions and Entry of Judgment, and DENIES Judicial Watch's and Fitton's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Sanctions and Entry of Judgment.
The Court need not revisit the factual background summarized in earlier opinions in this nearly thirteen-year litigation. See, e.g., Mem. Op. (June 25, 2009), Klayman v. Judicial Watch, Inc., 628 F. Supp. 2d 112, 118-19 (D.D.C. 2009) ("Klayman I"), ECF No. 319, at 3-4.3 Similarly, the many twists and turns in this case are amply recounted elsewhere. See, e.g., Klayman I, 628 F. Supp. 2d at 119-23.4 The Court shall focus on those proceedings specifically pertinent to the pending motions.
Relatively early in this litigation, the Court granted summary judgment for Judicial Watch as to the breach of contract claim in Count I of its Amended Counterclaim, awarded damages of $69,358.48, and reserved Judicial Watch's request for prejudgment interest "until after liability has been resolved as to all remaining claims and counterclaims." Mem. Op. (Oct. 14, 2009), Klayman v. Judicial Watch, Inc., 661 F. Supp. 2d 2, 4-6 (D.D.C. 2009) ("Klayman II"), ECF No. 327; see also Klayman I, 628 F. Supp. 2d at 157-60. The Court's treatment of claims and other counterclaims in prior proceedings is beyond the scope of this Memorandum Opinion.
A few days before trial in February 2018, the Court issued an Order laying out the claims and counterclaims that had survived to that point. See Order (Feb. 23, 2018), ECF No. 487, at 8-10.5 Klayman's remaining claims consisted of five allegations of breach of contract asserted in Counts Seven and Eight of his Second Amended Complaint. Id. at 8. Because those allegations are somewhat specific and are not directly at issue in the pending motions, the Court shall not repeat them here. Ten of Judicial Watch's and Fitton's counterclaims in their Amended Counterclaim remained viable: Counts I, II, and III for breaches of contract associated with unpaid expenses; Count IV for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a); Counts V and VI for unfair competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1); Counts VIII and IX for breaches of contract regarding disparagement of Judicial Watch and Fitton,respectively; Count X for breach of contract regarding certain Judicial Watch information; and Count XI for breach of contract regarding a non-competition period. Id. at 9-10; see also Am. Countercl., ECF No. 86 (). The only further pre-trial update to the claims or counterclaims was Judicial Watch's withdrawal of Count XI of its Amended Counterclaim. ECF No. 492.
On the day before trial, Klayman filed his Motion for Sanctions and Entry of Judgment, which dealt with the parties' differing characterizations of Klayman's discovery responses earlier in the case. The parties briefed the motion during trial, and the Court reserved a decision until the present Memorandum Opinion.
On February 26, 2018, the trial commenced and continued through March 14, 2018, when the jury returned its verdict. Klayman introduced evidence as to his claims against Judicial Watch. Again, the Court need not address proceedings as to Klayman's claims. After Judicial Watch and Fitton presented and rested their case as to their counterclaims, Klayman moved for judgment as a matter of law as to those counterclaims. See Trial Tr. 3191:6-7, 10-11; 3196:7-11.6 Rather than rule on the motion, the Court took the issues raised by Klayman under advisement. Id. 3191-3198. The Court instructed the jury orally and provided the jury with a copy of the prepared instructions.
On March 14, 2018, the jury delivered its verdict against Klayman on each of his extant claims and in favor of Judicial Watch and Fitton on each of their extant counterclaims. Jury Verdict, ECF No. 560. Although damages were allocated by counterclaim, the total awards were $2,300,000 for Judicial Watch and $500,000 for Fitton. See id. at 4-8. The Court allowed theparties to wait until after the court reporter's completion of the full trial transcript to brief Klayman's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and any other post-trial motions. See, e.g., Order (Apr. 12, 2018), ECF No. 565, at 3; Min. Order of Mar. 14, 2018.
On March 15, 2018, the Court entered judgments on the jury verdict for Judicial Watch and Fitton. J. on the Verdict for Counterpl. Judicial Watch, Inc., ECF No. 548; J. on the Verdict for Counterpl. Thomas J. Fitton, ECF No. 549. At Klayman's request, the Court later vacated its issuance of these judgments in order to avoid potential issues with a time bar under the Federal Rules. See Order (Apr. 12, 2018), ECF No. 565; see also 11 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure Civil § 2812 (3d ed.) .
On July 10, 2018, the court-established deadline for his post-trial motions, Klayman filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, a motion for new trial, and, in the alternative, a motion for remittitur of the jury's verdict. He followed on July 13, 2018, with a renewed motion for sanctions and entry of judgment, which Judicial Watch and Fitton moved to strike.
Now that briefing of all pending motions has concluded, these motions are ripe for resolution.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) provides that, once a jury has rendered its verdict, the verdict loser "may file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b). Relief under Rule 50(b) is "'highly disfavored' because it 'intrudes upon the rightful province of the jury.'" Breeden v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 646 F.3d 43, 53 (D.C. Cir. 2011)(quoting Boodoo v. Cary, 21 F.3d 1157, 1161 (D.C. Cir. 1994)). Nevertheless, "if the court finds that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain the verdict," Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180, 189 (2011), then the court may "direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law" in favor of the verdict loser or "order a new trial," Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b)(2), (b)(3). If, however, the district court finds that the evidence was legally sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict, then it must "allow judgment on the verdict." Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b)(1).
In this context, the central question "is whether there was sufficient evidence upon which the jury could base a verdict in [the prevailing party's] favor." Scott v. District of Columbia, 101 F.3d 748, 752 (D.C. Cir. 1996). The evidence in support of the verdict must "be more than merely colorable; it must [be] significantly probative." Richardson by Richardson v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 857 F.2d 823, 828-29 (D.C. Cir. 1988). However, because the fundamental role of the jury is "to select, from among conflicting inferences and conclusions, that which it finds most reasonable," Primas v. District of Columbia, 719 F.3d 693, 698 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (quoting Metrocare v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 679 F.2d 922, 925 (D.C. Cir. 1982)) (internal quotation marks omitted), "the court cannot substitute its view for that of the jury, and can assess neither the credibility nor weight of the evidence," Scott, 101 F.3d at 753. The jury's verdict must stand unless "the evidence and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom are so one-sided that reasonable men and women could not have reached a verdict in plaintiff['s] favor." United States ex rel. Miller v. Bill Harbert Int'l Constr., Inc., 608 F.3d 871, 899 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (quoting McGill v. Muñoz, 203 F.3d 843, 845 (D.C. Cir. 2000)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
However, a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law may be granted only upon grounds advanced in a pre-verdict motion; a movant who omits a theory from a pre-verdict Rule50 motion waives the theory as a basis of its post-verdict renewal. See Whelan v. Abell, 48 F.3d 1247, 1251 (D.C. Cir. 1995); U.S. Indus., Inc. v. Blake Constr. Co., Inc., 671 F.2d 539, 548 (D.C. Cir. 1982).
Rule 50(b)...
To continue reading
Request your trial