Sims v. ANR Freight System, Inc., s. 93-1625
| Decision Date | 14 March 1996 |
| Docket Number | 93-1850,Nos. 93-1625,s. 93-1625 |
| Citation | 77 F.3d 846 |
| Parties | 70 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 572 Terri Day SIMS, Individually and as Next Friend of Shaleen Day, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANR FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC. and Robert W. Hembling, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Tim G. Sralla, David Fielding, Fielding, Barrett & Taylor, L.L.P., Fort Worth, TX, for Appellant.
Belinda Turner Saulsberry, Houston, TX, Ronald Eugene Manthey, Tracy Bailey Brightman, Littler, Mendelson, Fastiff & Tichy, Dallas, TX, for ANR Freight.
Jay K. Rutherford, Bonnie A. Horinek, Jackson & Walker, L.L.P., Fort Worth, TX, for Robert W. Hembling.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Before DAVIS and PARKER, Circuit Judges, and BUNTON 1, District Judge.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff Terri Day Sims was employed with Defendant ANR Freight System, Inc. as a sales representative at ANR's Fort Worth office. Shaleen Day is Sims' daughter. Defendant Robert W. Hembling was the terminal manager of ANR's Fort Worth office. On August 26, 1987, Sims' employment with ANR was terminated.
Sims filed suit on November 25, 1991, asserting claims of sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge against ANR and Hembling under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Sims also filed claims for assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress against ANR and Hembling under Texas common law as next friend for her minor daughter Day.
The district court granted ANR's motion for partial summary judgment with respect to Day's tort claims on the basis that the alleged conduct by Hembling was outside the scope of his employment with ANR. The district court also granted motions for separate trials for the remaining tort claims against Hembling and the Title VII claims against ANR. In the former, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Hembling. In the latter, the district court ruled for ANR.
Prior to the trials, all parties agreed on an estimate that the cases would require 5 to 7 days total to try. Nevertheless, the district court gave the parties only 1 day for each trial. Furthermore, the district court imposed strict time limits on each party: 5 minutes each for opening statements, 2 hours for Plaintiff's case in chief, 2.5 hours for Defendant's case, and .5 hour for Plaintiff's rebuttal (5 hours of testimony for each case). The district court granted extra time over these limits in the bench trial but still forced the parties to complete each of the trials in less than a day, far less than half the time any of the parties estimated was necessary for a fair trial.
The district court required the parties to submit extremely detailed statements as to the facts they intended to prove at trial. For the jury trial on the tort claims, Sims identified 640 facts to be proven through 18 witnesses; Hembling listed 577 facts to be proven through 4 witnesses. In the bench trial on the Title VII claims, Sims specified 1510 facts to be proved through 27 witnesses; ANR named 318 facts to be proven through as many as 23 witnesses. The district court then refused to allow the parties to introduce any evidence as to the uncontested issues, including background facts such as the witnesses' work experience and education. The district court later denied a request to read certain stipulated facts to the jury, and the record is not clear how many or which ones were actually read to the jury.
The district court ordered Sims to call her witnesses in a specific order. Throughout both trials, the district court repeatedly limited both direct and cross examination, frequently ordering counsel to "move on," and continually reminded counsel of the time limits.
Sims appeals from the district court's final judgments in both cases, as well as the partial summary judgment in favor of ANR on the tort claims. The two appeals were consolidated.
II. ANALYSIS
Viewed as a whole, Plaintiff's claims are a charge that the methodology utilized by the district judge in this case so impaired counsel's ability to present evidence to the jury in a meaningful and comprehensible manner that it amounted to structural error. Or, to say it another way, Plaintiff in effect was denied a trial.
We do not review such a claim in a vacuum. We are mindful of the fact that Judge McBryde when he assumed office took over a docket that was both crowded and filled with cases that had been pending far too long. He is to be commended for the fact that he, through hard work and effective case management, reduced the docket to one of the lowest in the district. We have long encouraged trial judges to actively manage both their dockets and the trials they conduct.
The role of a federal judge is not that of a mere moderator. Posey v. United States, 416 F.2d 545, 555 (5th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 946, 90 S.Ct. 964, 25 L.Ed.2d 127 (1970). Furthermore, the courts of this country labor under heavy caseloads, and in order to accommodate these caseloads some concessions to expediency are necessary. However, if the goal of expediency is given higher priority than the pursuit of justice, then the bench and the bar both will have failed in their duty to uphold the Constitution and the underlying principles upon which our profession is founded. Speed is necessary, and the limited capabilities of the judicial system certainly should be considered in determining whether to impose limits on the introduction of evidence and the length of trial. However, such considerations must be addressed with a cautious respect for the requirements necessary to achieve a fair trial.
We recognize that a district judge has broad discretion in managing his docket, including trial procedure and the conduct of trial. Topalian v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125, 1139 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 825, 113 S.Ct. 82, 121 L.Ed.2d 46 (1992). Furthermore, although a trial judge must be neutral, he should not be a passive spectator. Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1129, modified, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042, 103 S.Ct. 1438, 75 L.Ed.2d 795 (1983). When in his sound discretion he deems it advisable, a judge may comment on evidence, question witnesses, elicit facts not yet adduced, or clarify those previously presented. Id. He may maintain the pace of the trial by interrupting or setting time limits on counsel. Id. However, discretion has its limits. See Kelly v. Boeing Petroleum Serv., Inc., ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
US v. Hildebrand
... ... , however, the prosecution, at least in the federal system, seems not to be subject to such fiscal constraints, and ... See, e.g., Sims v. ANR Freight Sys., Inc., 77 F.3d 846, 849 (5th Cir.1996) ... ...
-
McBryde v. Committee to Rev. Cir. Council Conduct, CIV.A.98-2457 CKK.
... ... Satz, and Torres v. Trinity Industry Inc. See Pl.'s 108(h) ¶ 14. At the meeting, Judge McBryde ... court when, due to a malfunctioning of the telephone system, the attorney's office was ... Page 144 ... unable to ... at 122 (citing Sims v. ANR Freight System, Inc., 77 F.3d 846, 850 (5th ... ...
-
Pruitt v. Mote
... ... Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517, 533, 114 S.Ct. 1023, 127 L.Ed.2d 455 ... See Sims v. ANR Freight Sys., Inc., 77 F.3d 846, 849 (5th ... Values, Ideology, and the Evolution of the Adversary System, 64 Ind. L.J. 301, 321 n. 96 (1989). When confronted with ... ...
-
U.S. v. Reynard
... ... to the FBI for entry into the Combined DNA Index System ("CODIS"), a national DNA database linking DNA evidence in ... 2597, 101 L.Ed.2d 569 (1988); Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, 442 U.S. 319, 99 S.Ct. 2319, 60 L.Ed.2d 920 ... or of fact, before a court that has jurisdiction"); Sims v. ANR Freight System, Inc., 77 F.3d 846, 849 (5th ... ...