Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02611/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02611-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

The State of Arizona, ex rel. Terry

Goddard, the Attorney General; the Civil

Rights Division of the Arizona Dept. of

Law; and Jill Shumway,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

DHL Express (USA), Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2611-PHX-FJM

ORDER

 The court has before it defendant’s “Motion for Expedited Status Conference”

(doc. 139), and the plaintiffs’ “Joint Response” (doc. 157).

 After the verdict was returned in this case, we invited the jurors to stay and chat

with the lawyers if they wanted to. We told them it would be an opportunity for the lawyers

to learn how their presentations went and what was persuasive and what was not. It was not

an invitation to the lawyers to interrogate the jurors about the validity of their verdict. Any

such inquiry would violate Rule 606(b), Fed. R. Evid. Indeed, if we thought that a jury

verdict could be attacked based upon post verdict discussions with counsel, we would never

invite jurors to stay and talk. This would deprive the lawyers of an opportunity to learn more

about the adversary process. 

 At page two of the defendant’s motion it is asserted that the parties agreed that the

jurors’ inquiry before verdict was irrelevant and that the court forwarded a written response

Case 2:06-cv-02611-FJM Document 159 Filed 03/06/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

to that effect. That is simply not the case. The court’s initial proposal was to respond that

way, but the parties stipulated to a more substantive response, which the court gave. The

record is quite clear about this.

 At all events, nothing asserted in the “Motion for Expedited Status Conference”

would justify inquiring into the jury’s verdict, Rule 606 (b), Fed. R. Evid., nor would it

justify a new trial. For all these reasons, the “Motion for Expedited Status Conference” is

DENIED (doc. 139).

DATED this 6th day of March, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-02611-FJM Document 159 Filed 03/06/08 Page 2 of 2