Moore v. Hartman
| Citation | 102 F.Supp.3d 35 |
| Decision Date | 17 April 2015 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 93–0324,Civil Action No. 92–2288 |
| Parties | William G. Moore, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Michael Hartman, et al., Defendants. William G. Moore, Jr., Plaintiff, v. United States of America, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Paul M. Pohl, Jones Day, Pittsburgh, PA, Amy E. Dias, Henry W. Asbill, Christian G. Vergonis, Charles T. Kotuby, Jr., Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Washington, DC, Richard H. Deane Jr., Jones Day, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff.James G. Bartolotto, Reginald M. Skinner, Paul Werner, Kelly Heidrich, Linda Cheng, Andrea w. McCarthy, Richard Montague, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
1. Plaintiff's Initiation of Two Lawsuits ... 11
2. Key Judicial Decisions ... 12
3. Pre–Trial Motions in Limine ... 26
4. Trial ... 27
1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) Applicable to Findings and Conclusions by the Court ... 30
1. Brief Overview of Pertinent Components of USPS ... 34
2. USPS Automation Program ... 36
3. Summer of 1985 Initiation of Investigation of BOG Vice Chairman Voss ... 39
4. Plaintiff and REI's Dealings with USPS Through Summer 1985 ... 44
1. November 1985 Interview with AEG Officials ... 53
2. November 20, 1985 Interview of Plaintiff and Subordinates ... 54
3. Postal Inspectors Learn of Relationship between REI and GAI ... 55
4. January 6, 1986 Firing of Postmaster General Carlin ... 56
5. Postal Inspection Service Request for Initiation of Grand Jury Investigation ... 57
6. April 1986 Confession of William Spartin About Illegal Scheme ... 59
7. April 8, 1986 Postal Inspector Interview with Plaintiff's Subordinates ... 62
8. May 1986 Guilty Plea and Cooperation by Vice Chairman Voss ... 63
9. July 25–26, 1986 Follow-up Interviews of Plaintiff and Subordinates and Review of Plaintiff's Notebooks ... 68
10. Subsequent Interviews of Co–Conspirators ... 70
1. Postal Inspectors Did Not Violate Rule 6(e) ... 93
2. Mr. Spartin's Testimony Did Not Cause Indictment of Plaintiff ... 107
3. Interview Summaries Did Not Cause Mr. Spartin to Implicate Plaintiff ... 108
4. Mr. Spartin's Opinion Did Not Procure Indictment ... 111
1. Plaintiff Has Not Rebutted Indictment's Presumption of Probable Cause ... 115
2. Indictment Against Plaintiff Was Supported by Probable Cause ... 120
1. Alleged USPS Animosity Towards REI and Plaintiff ... 127
2. Initiation of Investigation of REI and Plaintiff Was Warranted ... 131
3. Subpoenas Issued to REI ... 134
4. Documents Prepared by Postal Inspectors ... 137
1. Exclusion of Indemnification Evidence ... 153
2. Exclusion of Prior Judicial Opinion ... 160
3. Plaintiff's Country Club Membership ... 164
4. Admission of Hearsay Evidence ... 167
1. Concert of Action Instruction ... 172
2. Probable Cause Instruction ... 176
3. Inducement Instruction ... 178
1. Questioning of Witnesses ... 187
2. Instruction Concerning Deposition Questions ... 188
3. Instruction Following Summation ... 189
Over twenty years ago, the plaintiff, William G. Moore, Jr., filed these consolidated cases after his acquittal on serious felony charges. The ensuing years of litigation generated no fewer than sixteen judicial opinions and, more recently, a four-week concurrent jury and bench trial, in which the plaintiff sought over $235,000,000 for lost compensation, emotional and reputational damages. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants. The plaintiff now seeks a new jury trial on his claim against four living and one deceased former United States Postal Inspectors for retaliatory inducement to prosecution, under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), Pl.'s Mot. for New Trial (“Pl.'s Mot.”), Case No. 92–2288, ECF No. 511, and judgment in his favor on his claim against the United States for malicious prosecution, under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671 et seq. See generally Pl.'s Proposed Findings of Fact (“Pl.'s FOF”), ECF No. 126–1; Pl.'s Proposed Concl. of Law (“Pl.'s COL”), ECF No. 127.
Other Judges on this Court previously dismissed the plaintiff's Bivens claim against the Postal Inspectors twice and his FTCA claim against the United States three times, but the two claims at issue at trial and addressed in this Memorandum Opinion were revived each time on appeal. See Moore v. Hartman, Nos. 92–CV–2288 (NHJ), 93–CV–0324 (NHJ), 1993 WL 405785 (D.D.C. Sept. 24, 1993) (1993 Decision) (granting motion to dismiss the plaintiff's Bivens and FTCA claims), aff'd in part, rev'd in part sub nom. Moore v. Valder, 65 F.3d 189 (D.C.Cir.1995) (Moore I) (); Moore v. Valder, No. 92–CV–2288, Mem. Op. (D.D.C. Feb. 5, 1998) (1998 Decision) (denying summary judgment on Bivens claim against the Postal Inspector defendants, granting summary judgment on the Bivens claim against federal prosecutor, and granting summary judgment on the FTCA claim against the United States), aff'd in part, rev'd in part sub nom. Moore v. United States, 213 F.3d 705 (D.C.Cir.2000) (Moore II) (); Moore v. Hartman, 569 F.Supp. 2d 133, 137 (D.D.C.2008) (2008 Decision) (granting summary judgment on the Bivens claim against the Postal Inspectors and the FTCA claim against the United States), rev'd, Moore v. Hartman, 644 F.3d 415, 426 (D.C.Cir.2011) ( Moore V) vacated sub nom. Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 126 S.Ct. 1695, 164 L.Ed.2d 441 (2006) (vacating Moore V and remanding); Moore v. Hartman, 704 F.3d 1003 (D.C.Cir.2013), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 250, 126 S.Ct. 1695, 164 L.Ed.2d 441 (2013) (Moore VI) (reinstating Moore V ). This prolonged procedural history is set out below, after a brief overview of these cases, to provide context, first, for the factual findings and legal conclusions reached by this Court on the plaintiff's FTCA malicious prosecution claim against the United States and, second, for resolution of the plaintiff's motion for a new trial on his Bivens retaliatory inducement to prosecution claim against five former Postal Inspectors.
For the reasons discussed below, the Court reaches the same conclusion as the jury that heard the plaintiff's Bivens claim: The plaintiff has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, his FTCA claim of malicious prosecution by the United States. Moreover, the plaintiff is not entitled to un-do the jury verdict against him and re-do in a new trial his Bivens claim for retaliatory prosecution against the former Postal Inspectors.
Set out below is a brief overview of the factual background underlying these cases as well as a summary of the lengthy procedural history.
In November 1989, another Judge on this Court granted the plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict of acquittal, under Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, on criminal charges, inter alia, that he engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. United States v. Recognition Equip., Inc., 725 F.Supp. 587, 58788 (D.D.C.1989). Rather than end the litigation between the parties, however, the plaintiff's acquittal triggered over twenty years of continuing litigation culminating in the concurrent bench and jury trial before this Court.
As detailed in the factual findings set out in Part III, infra, in July 1985, the Chief Postal Inspector opened an investigation into possible corruption at the highest level of the United States Postal Service (“USPS”). Over the course of the next three years, Postal Inspectors uncovered an illegal bribery and kickback scheme in which Peter Voss, the Vice Chairman of the USPS Board of Governors (“BOG”), took bribes from an outside consulting group to use his influence on a key subcommittee of the BOG to award a sole source contract for up to $400,000,000, to the consultants' client. If the scheme were successful, the Vice Chairman expected a percentage kickback from the sole source contract. The consultants' client and the source of the bribe monies paid to the BOG Vice Chairman was Recognition Equipment, Inc. (“REI”), a Dallas, Texas company headed by the plaintiff.
When the plaintiff took over as Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of REI in 1982, he initiated a multi-pronged campaign to increase the company's business with USPS and, specifically, to obtain a sole source contract from USPS for the purchase of REI's mail sorting equipment, which used a different technology than that widely deployed by USPS. As part of what the plaintiff himself described as “aggressively pursu[ing] [the] contract,” 6/25/14 AM Tr. at 97,1 the plaintiff (1) met...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramirez v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Civil Action No.: 18-508 (RC)
...S.A. DE C.V. , 188 F. Supp. 3d 22, 34 (D.D.C. 2016) ; Wise v. United States , 145 F. Supp. 3d 53, 57 (D.D.C. 2015) ; Moore v. Hartman , 102 F. Supp. 3d 35, 65 (D.D.C. 2015). The Court is neither "require[d]" nor "encourage[d]" "to assert the negative of each rejected contention as well as t......
-
Yah Kai World Wide Enters., Inc. v. Napper
...factual contention and argumentative detail raised by the parties, [n]or discuss all evidence presented at trial." Moore v. Hartman , 102 F.Supp.3d 35, 65 (D.D.C.2015) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Instead, " 'the judge need only make brief, definite, pertinent findings ......
-
Paleteria La Michoacana, Inc. v. Productos Lacteos Tocumbo S.A. De C.V.
...Feb. 9, 1998) ; Wise v. United States , 145 F.Supp.3d 53, 57, 2015 WL 7274026, at *2 (D.D.C. Nov. 17, 2015) ; Moore v. Hartman , 102 F.Supp.3d 35, 65 (D.D.C.2015). The Court is neither "require[d]" nor "encourage[d]" "to assert the negative of each rejected contention as well as the affirma......
-
Angelex Ltd. v. United States
...the reasonableness of the Government's decision to charge both Angelex and Kassian with violations of the APPS. See Moore v. Hartman , 102 F.Supp.3d 35, 118 (D.D.C. 2015) (finding grand jury indictment definitively established probable cause when plaintiff failed to undermine the indictment......
-
Witness
..., where district court issued limiting instruction prohibiting jury from considering such records for their truth . Moore v. Hartman , 102 F. Supp. 3d 35, 148 (D.D.C. 2015). In FTCA damages claim resulting from alleged kickback scheme involving United States Postal Service (USPS), district ......