United States v. Jindal
| Docket Number | 4:20-CR-00358-ALM |
| Decision Date | 11 August 2022 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Neeraj JINDAL (1) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas |
Jariel A. Rendell, Matthew William Lunder, Doha Gamal Mekki, Assistant US Attorneys, Rachel Danielle Kroll, Spencer Douglas Smith, US Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Washington, DC, for United States of America.
Paul Edward Coggins, Bradley Carroll Weber, Brendan Patrick Gaffney, Jennifer Marie McCoy, Locke Lord LLP, Dallas, TX, for Neeraj Jindal.
Pending before the Court is Defendant Neeraj Jindal's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal or for New Trial (Dkt. #137). Having considered the motion and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the motion should be DENIED.
On December 12, 2020, the Government filed an Indictment against Defendant Neeraj Jindal ("Jindal") (Dkt. #1). On April 15, 2021, the Government filed the First Superseding Indictment (hereinafter "Indictment"), adding John Rodgers ("Rodgers") as a defendant (Dkt. #21). The four-count Indictment charged Jindal and Rodgers with: (1) antitrust conspiracy: price fixing, violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1; (2) conspiracy to commit offense, violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; (3) obstruction of proceedings before the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"), violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505 and 2 (Jindal only); and (4) obstruction of proceedings before the Federal Trade Commission, violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505 and 2 (Rodgers only) (Dkt. #21). Following an eight-day trial, the jury acquitted the Defendants on Counts One, Two, and Four. However, the jury found Defendant Jindal guilty of Count Three of the Indictment—violating § 1505 by obstructing proceedings before the FTC.
Count Three of the Indictment charged Jindal with violating 18 U.S.C. § 1505 by obstructing proceedings pending before the FTC (Dkt. #21). More specifically, mirroring the statutory text, Count Three alleged that Jindal "corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, and impede the due and proper administration of the law under which a pending proceeding was being had before a department or agency of the United States" (Dkt. #21 ¶ 22). Count Three further alleged that Jindal committed the violation by "the following means:"
(Dkt. #21 ¶ 22). The Indictment then specified several "example[s]" of these means (Dkt. #21 ¶ 23).
From April 4, 2022, to April 14, 2022, the Court held a jury trial. The evidence at trial showed that Jindal owned a physical therapist staffing company called Integrity Home Therapy ("Integrity") from 2013 to 2017. Jindal purchased Integrity from his co-defendant, Rodgers, who continued to work as a physical therapist with Integrity.
The evidence further showed that on March 10, 2017, at 1:36 PM, Rodgers texted Sheri Yarbray ("Yarbray"), owner of Your Therapy Source ("YTS"), a competitor of Integrity, "I think we're going to lower PTA rates to $45" (Dkt. #142, Exhibit 1 at p. 1). Yarbray replied, "Yes I agree" and "I'll do it with u" (Dkt. #142, Exhibit 1 at p. 1). The Government introduced evidence that the same afternoon that Rodgers texted Yarbray, Jindal texted four additional competitors of Integrity: (1) Tuan Le ("Le"), owner of Dwell Therapy; (2) Nathan Foreman ("Foreman"), owner of Foreman Therapy Services; (3) Kimberly Grimmett, owner of Innovative Therapy Resources; and (4) Shay Smith, owner of Therapy Heroes. In these texts, Jindal stated: "I have YTS on board"1 (Dkt. #142, Exhibit 1 at pp. 9-13).
At trial, the Government introduced evidence that Shay Smith reported Jindal's text to the FTC (Dkt. #142, Exhibit 1 at p. 14). The evidence further established that, in April 2017, the FTC began a preliminary investigation into Jindal's and Rodgers' March 2017 text messages with competitors of Integrity and that Jindal was aware of the FTC's investigation (Dkt. #142, Exhibit 1 at p. 16). The Court took judicial notice that the FTC's subsequent investigation was a proceeding pending before an agency of the United States (Dkt. #130 at pp. 166-67).
The Government also introduced evidence that, in response to a request for voluntary information from the FTC, (Dkt. #142, Exhibit 1 at p. 16), Jindal concealed information and made several false and misleading statements to the FTC. For example, on April 28, 2017, in an email to the FTC, Jindal stated: "To my recollection I reached out to these 3 (not sure if all 3) businesses owners[—]" "Tuan at Dwell," "Kim at Innovative" and "Shay at Therapy Heroes" (Dkt. #142, Exhibit 6). Notably, Jindal did not list Foreman, owner of Foreman Therapy Service (Dkt. #142, Exhibit 6). In the same email, Jindal stated: "I decided to administer rate cuts to some of my therapists based on a collective agreement with my office team" (Dkt. #142, Exhibit 6).
Further, the evidence at trial showed that on the same day, April 28, 2017, in response to a voluntary request from the FTC for a list of Integrity's competitors, Jindal sent the FTC a typewritten list of competitors (Dkt. #142, Exhibit 9 at p. 6). Notably, the list did not include YTS or Foreman—two competitors that he had direct or indirect communications with about lowering PTA rates (Dkt. #142, Exhibit 9 at p. 6). Almost five months later, after the FTC served Integrity with a Civil Investigative Demand, Jindal's counsel produced a handwritten list of competitors to the FTC (Dkt. #142, Exhibit 9 at p. 7). This time, the list included both YTS and Foreman as competitors (Dkt. #142, Exhibit 9 at p. 7). The companies included on both lists appeared in the same order on each, indicating that that typewritten list that Jindal had produced earlier was based on the handwritten list (Dkt. #142, Exhibit 9 at pp. 6-7).
As well, the Government introduced evidence that on September 15, 2017, Jindal made several false and misleading statements to the FTC during his investigational hearing (Dkt. #142, Exhibit 49; Dkt. 142, Exhibit 50). For instance, the FTC asked Jindal why he texted Le that "YTS was on board," and Jindal replied, (Dkt. #142, Exhibit 49 at p. 35). However, the evidence at trial showed this response was misleading as Jindal failed to inform the FTC about Rodgers' messages with the owner of YTS. Further, Jindal testified at the FTC hearing that when he sent the text messages to his competitors, his intent was only to find out what his competitors were paying their workers (Dkt. #142, Exhibit 49 at p. 34). And when asked whether he had information on Grimmett's rates because he previously attempted to acquire her company, Jindal doubled down on his explanation, testifying, "No, we didn't go down that far on the rates when I was trying to acquire her" (Dkt. #142, Exhibit 49 at p. 56). However, the Government presented evidence at trial that Jindal's explanations were false and contrary to Grimmett's trial testimony.
At trial, Jindal proposed a "unanimity of theory" jury instruction for Count Three. More specifically, Jindal's proposed instruction listed several of the Indictment's examples of the means by which Jindal obstructed the FTC investigation and instructed the jury that they all "must agree that the same one has been proved" (Dkt. #78 at pp. 22-23). However, the Court denied Jindal's request for a "unanimity of theory" instruction, and Jindal objected (Dkt. #131 at p. 243). Thus, the jury instructions and verdict form did not include reference to any particular false or misleading statements; withheld, concealed, altered, or destroyed information; or any other corrupt acts alleged in the Indictment.
Instead, the jury instructions for Count Three began by explaining that 18 U.S.C. § 1505 "makes it a crime for anyone to corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States" (Dkt. #111 at p. 28). The Court further instructed the jury that Count Three charged Jindal with violating § 1505 by two means (i.e. directly obstructing and aiding and abetting another in obstructing the FTC investigation) and that if the jury found Jindal violated 18 U.S.C. § 1505 by either of the two means, then they may convict on Count Three (Dkt. #111 at p. 29). As to the elements of Count Three, the Court instructed the jury as follows:
Additionally, as to the aiding and abetting theory of Count Three, the Court instructed the jury that it must find the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
To continue reading
Request your trial