# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 43 99

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Cal vi n F le tc he r, Sr.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Jo se ph Tom li ns on

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t

Nich ol as Mart or an o; Jo hn Mo to n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el la nt

s

Jo na th an Carr ol l; Cit y

of S t. Lo ui s; St. Lo ui s C it y Met ro po li ta n P ol ic e Dep art m en t; Bo ard of P ol ic e Co m m is si on ers ; Co riz on , Inc .; Dr. J an e Doe ; J an e Doe , 1; Jan e Doe , 2; Ric ha rd Gray , in hi s ca pa ci ty as po li ce co m m is si on er; Tho m as Irwin , in hi s ca pa ci ty as po li ce co m m is si on er; Erwin Swit zer, i n h is
cap aci ty as po li ce co m

m is si on er; Bet tye Batt le -Tur ne r, in he r cap aci ty as po li ce

co m m is si on er; Fran ci s G. Sl ay , in hi s ca pa ci ty as po li ce co m m is si on er; Pau l Geig er; Apri l Sc ot t; Rh al as ho nd ra St rau gh te r; J oyce San ch ez; Bla ke Lead be tt er;

Ja ne Doe, 3 ; J an e Doe , 4; Jo hn Doe, 1 ; J oh n Do e, 2

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __Su bm it te d: Decem be r 12 , 20 17 Fil ed : J ul y

13 , 20 18

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , ARNOLD and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

SMI TH, Chi ef J ud ge

.

St

. Lou is Po li ce D e p a r t men t (SLPD) Offi cers Nich ol as Mar to ran o an d Jo hn
Mo to n ap pe al fro m th e di st ric t co ur t’s jud gm en t, en te red up on a jury ve rd ic t, fin di ng 1

th at th ey us ed ex ces si ve fo rce in th ei r ap pr eh en si on an d arre st of Cal vi n Fl et ch er an d
award in g dam ag es to Fl et ch er tot al in g $6 00 ,00 0. They rai se th ree is su es on ap pe al : (1 ) th e d i st ric t co ur t erre d in al lo win g Fl et ch er to read de po si ti on te st im on y of a

m ed ic al ex pe rt who was no t su bjec t to cro ss -ex am in at io n at tri al ; (2 ) th e di st ric t co ur t

erre d in al lo win g th e jury to award pu ni ti ve da m ag es ag ai ns t Offi cer Mo to n wit ho ut

ev id en ce th at Offi cer Mo to n en ga ge d in an y ex ces si ve fo rce ag ai ns t Fl et ch er; an d (3 )
th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in fai li ng to de du ct fro m Fl et ch er’s jud gm en t th e am ou nt s th at
he rece iv ed fro m

hi s s et tl em en ts wit h o th er d efen da nt s. We affi rm

.

I. Bac kg ro un d
“We vi ew th e fact s rel ev an t to th e co nt ro ll in g is su e of la w in th e li gh t m os t
fav or ab l e t o th e jury’ s ve rd ic t.” Hag en v. Si ou xl an d Obs te tr ic s & Gyn eco lo gy , PC
, 79 9 F .3d 92 2, 9 24 (8t h C ir. 2 01 5)

.

One ev en in g, Fl et ch er, a 5’8” Afri can -Am eri can m al e w ho w ei gh s 15 5 po un ds

,

was walk in g to a ga s st at io n in St

. Lou is

, Mi ss ou ri. Fl et ch er was un arm ed an d carr ie d

no dr ug s or ot he r co nt rab an d. F l e t c h er sa w a m ark ed pa tro l car le av in g th e ga s

The Hon or ab le Ro nn ie L. W hi te , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-st at io n’s pa rk in g lo t. SLPD Offi cers Jo se ph Tom li ns on , Mar to ran o, an d Mo to n were

in th e pa tro l car. Fl et ch er co nt in ue d walk in g. He sa w th e pa tro l car st op at a st op li gh t.
Fl et ch er was st an di ng at t he co rn er o f th e st reet wher e th e p at ro l ca r st op pe d.

Upo n se ei ng Fl et ch er, th e of fic ers rad io ed at 8: 21 p.m

. th at th ey were ab ou t to

pe rfo rm a “p e d e st ria n ch eck ” on Fl et ch er. Acco rd in g to th e of fic ers , th ey in it ia te d

co nt act wit h Fl et ch er ba se d on hi s be ha vi or in a va can t lo t at th e co rn er of th e st reet

. Offi cer Tom li ns on cl ai m ed t h a t Fl et ch er “ se em ed to be ad jus ti ng so m et hi ng in hi s wais tb an d,” whi ch is “ [g ]enera ll y

. . . a si gn of so m eo ne carr y in g a weap on or

so m et hi ng on th em .” Ju ry Tria l Pro ceed in gs Tran sc rip t, Vol

. II, at 16 6– 67
, Flet ch er

v. To mli ns on , No. 4: 14 -cv -0 0 9 9 9

- R LW (E.D. Mo

. Aug

. 9, 20 16 ), ECF No. 22 1.
Offi cer Tom li ns on al so te st ifi ed th at Fl et ch er was “ vi si bl y st art le d” by th e pa tro l car. Id

. at 16 7. Fl et ch er walk ed qu ic kl y away fro m th e po li ce, an d Offi cer Tom li ns on
te st ifi ed th at Fl et ch er th en di sc ard ed so m e type of pa ck ag e fro m hi s po ck et s. Offi cer Tom li ns on de sc rib ed th e pa ck ag e as “ a ch un k of of f-wh it e r o c k -li ke su bs ta nc e
wrap pe d in p l a s ti c, ti ed at th e en d. The pl as ti c was kn ot te d.” Id

. at 15 4. Fl et ch er, ho wev er, te st ifi e d t h a t h e w as no t in a va can t lo t th at ev en in g an d ne ve r th rew

an y th in g o ut of hi s po ck et s afte r he no ti ced th e pa tro l car. In an y ev en t, t he off

ic ers
st op pe d th ei r pa tro l car, an d Offi cer Tom li ns on go t ou t to ret rie ve wha te ve r Fl et ch er ha d a ll eg ed ly dis card ed

.

The reaf te r, th e of fic ers so ug ht to de ta in Fl et ch er. All th e of fic ers le ft th e pa tro l

car an d rap id ly ap pr oa ch ed Fl et ch er. Fro m th e pa tro l car to whe re Fl et ch er st oo d was

a few feet

. The of

fic ers were arm ed an d wea r i n g a r mo red ve st s. Each was ov er si x feet ta ll an d weig he d at le as t 20 0 po un ds

. St art le d, Fl et ch er be ga n ba ck pe da li ng

. He
tri ed to m ai nt ai n e y e co nt act wit h th e of fic ers , bu t he gla nc ed ba ck on ce or twice to

se e whe re he was go in g an d to se e if so m et hi ng be hi nd hi m was dr awin g th e of fic ers ’

at te nt io n. Offi cer Mar t o r a n o fel l as he ne ared Fl et ch er, cu tt in g hi s ha nd

. Offi cer Mo to n reac he d Fl et ch er f i rs t, an d Offi cer Mar to ran o jum pe d to hi s feet an d ran to
Fl et ch er, to o. Fl et ch er te st ifi ed th at as he was ba ck in g up , on e of th e of fic ers (n ot

-3

-Offi cer Mar to ran o) cau gh t up wit h hi m , an d Fl et ch er fel l on hi s bo tt om

. Afte r

Fl et ch er fel l, th e of

fic er cam e up be hi nd Fl et ch er an d pu t hi s ha nd s be hi nd Fl et ch er’s
ba ck

.

W hi le Fl et ch er sa t on th e gr ou nd

, Offi cer Mar to ran o, ap pe ari ng an gr y , ru sh ed

to ward Fl et ch er wit h hi s ha nd s up an d carr y in g so m et hi ng in hi s ha nd

. Acco rd in g to
Fl et ch er, Offi cer Mar to ran o “ sm ack ed [Fl et ch er] a cro ss [h is ] fac e” w i t h s o m et hi ng th at “ fel t li ke a br ic k.” I d

. at 20 –2 1. Fl et ch er id en ti fie d “ Offi cers Tom li ns on , Mar to ran o[ ,] an d Mo to n” as th e of fic ers who th en “ st art ed ki ck in g an d pu nc hi ng an d
hi tt in g [h im ] al l ov er [h is ] bo dy” as he sa t th ere. Id

. at 21

. Fl et ch er di d no t res is t th e of fic ers

. Acco rd in g to Fl et ch er, “ it fel t li ke [th e of fic ers were hi tt in g hi m wit h]

so m et hi ng ha rd , l ik e a po le or so m et h i n g

. ” Id

. at 24 . He de sc rib ed it as “ so m e ki nd
of ro d.” Id

. He fel t th is ob

ject “ [o ]n [h is ] lo wer ba ck

, [h is ] le gs .” Id

. Acco rd in g to th e
po li ce repo rt, Office r Mo to n was the of fic er who hi t Flet ch er wit h a ba to n. Office rs Mo to n an d Mar to ran o th en ha nd cu ffed Fl et ch er an d pl aced hi m in th e ba ck se at of th e
pa tro l ca r.

W hi le in th e pa tro l car, Fl et ch er sa w so m e ba gs , a jack et , an d a cel l ph on e. He
be ga n “ sc ream in g an d y el li ng an d sa y in g th at

. . . th is st uf f is no t m in e. ‘W

ha t’s go in g

on ? W ha t’s go in g on ? ’” Id

. at 25

. Fl et ch er fear ed th at th e of fic ers were “ tryin g to se t [h im ] up .” Id

. at 26

. Fl et ch er y el le d bu t di d no th in g to da m ag e th e pa tro l car. Fl et ch er
te st ifi ed th at he y el le d br ie fly. The n, th e of fic ers go t hi m ou t of th e pa tro l car, cu rs ed

at hi m , to ld hi m to sh ut up , an d s t a r t e d be at in g hi m ag ai n. To Fl et ch er, th e be at in g

se em ed li ke it la s t e d a lo ng ti m e. Fl et ch er rem ai ne d ha nd cu ffed th ro ug ho ut th e

en co un te r. He te st ifi ed he di d no t fig ht ba ck in an y way

. Fl et ch er be li ev ed th ere were

m or e th an th ree of

fic ers in vo lv ed in th e be at in g be cau se he “ sa w

. . . a la dy [wh o] ha d
he r fo ot on [h is ] ne ck .” Id

. at 27

. Towar d t h e en d of th e be at in g, Fl et ch er reca ll ed tryin g to lo ok ba ck

. One of th e of fic ers go t a jack et an d pu t it ov er Fl et ch er’s he ad to
bl oc k hi s si gh t. The n, Fl et ch er fel t an el ect ric sh oc k. Fl et ch er reca ll ed th e of fic ers

-4

-hi tt in g hi m whi le th e fem al e’s fo ot was on hi s ne ck

. Fl et ch er b e li ev ed th at he

pr ob ab ly los t co ns ci ou sn es s b ecau se he “ can ’t rem em be r a wh ol e lo t.” Id . at 3 1.

Not su rp ris in gl y , th e of

fic ers de sc rib ed ev en ts fro m th at ev en in g di ffer en tl y th an th e way Fl et ch er de sc rib ed th em

. Onc e p l a c e d i n t he pa tro l car, Fl et ch er,

acco rd in g to th e of

fic ers , rem ai ne d co m

ba ti ve , th ras hi ng an d ki ck in g in th e pa tro l car. Thi s pro m

pt ed th e of

fic ers to req ue st a pa dd y wag on at 8: 26 p.m

. Offi cer Jo na th an 2

Carr ol l arri ve d dr iv in g th e pa dd y wag on at 8: 29 p.m

. Acco rd in g to th e of fic ers , th ey 3

pu t Fl et ch er in th e pa dd y wag on so on aft er it arri ve d an d hi s “s a me co m ba ti ve be ha vi or co nt i n u e d

. ” Ju ry Tria l Pro ceed in gs Tran sc rip t, Vol

. III, at 18

. Fl et ch er
cat eg or ic al ly den ie d b eh av in g t ha t way. 4

Test im on y de fin ed a pa dd y wag on as “ a fu ll -s iz e va n with a pr is on er cag e in 2 th e ba ck

. It ha s two se at s, a dr iv er’s se at an d a pa ss en ge r se at .” Ju ry Tria l Pro ceed in gs Tran sc rip t, Vol

. I, at 12 1, Flet ch er v. To mli ns on , No. 4: 14 -cv -0 09 99 -RLW (E.D. Mo

. Aug . 8 , 2 01 6) , EC F No. 22 0. It is u s e d “fo r tra ns po rti ng arre st ees in th e Ci ty o f St

. Lou is .” Id

. Serg ean t C h r i s t op he r Si m eo ne was di sp at ch ed to th e sc en e at 8: 49 p.m

. He 3

reca ll ed arri vi ng at th e sc en e pr io r to th e pa dd y wag on ’s arri va l, bu t th e pa dd y wag on arri ve d at 8: 29 p

. m— 20 m in ut es pr io r to Serg ean t Si m eo ne ’s di sp at ch ed ti m e. Serg ean t Si m eo ne cl ai m ed he ob se rv ed Fl et ch er in th e pa tro l car y el li ng an d cau si ng th e ca r t o s h a k e ba ck an d fo rth

. Serg ean t Si m eo ne te st ifi ed he op en ed th e do or to
sp eak wit h F le tc he r, an d F le tc he r was “ m ov in g a bo ut ag gr es si ve ly in t he ba ck se at , ki nd of thr as hin g ab out , y el lin g in co he ren tl y .” Ju ry Tria l Pro ceed in gs Tran sc rip t, Vol

. III, at 10 9, Flet ch er v. To mli ns on , No. 4: 14 -cv -0 09 99 -RLW (E.D. Mo

. Aug

. 10
, 20 16 ), ECF N o. 22 2. Serg ean t Sim eo ne te st ifi ed to se ei ng Fl et ch er ou t of th e pa tro l

car whe n “ he was co nv ey ed ei th er to th e pa [d d]y wag on or th e EMS va n.” Id

. at 12 1.

W hi le th e pa dd y wag on is eq ui pp ed wit h cam eras , Offi cer Carr ol l tu rn ed th em 4 of f whe n he arri ve d on th e sc en e. Howev er, th e da sh bo ard cam era di d cap tu re fo ot ag e up on hi s arri va l to th e sc en e. The da sh bo ard fo ot ag e sh ows th e of fic ers ta lk in g as th e pa dd y wag on arri ve s. The pa tro l car’s do or s are op en , an d it s em erg en cy li gh ts are no t

on . Fle tc he r is no t s een

.
-5

-Fl et ch er do es no t reca ll ho w he go t to th e pa dd y wag on

. Offi cer Carr ol l

te st ifi ed th at Fl et ch er “ ha d to be dr ag ge d a li tt le ” to th e pa dd y wag o n

. J u r y Tr ia l
Pro ceed in gs Tran sc rip t, Vol

. I, at 13 8. Acco rd in g to Offi cer Carr ol l, Fl et ch er’s bo dy

was “ [p ]rob ab ly” li m

p. Id

. Offi cer Carr ol l co nf irmed th at “ th e o f

f ic ers la id Mr.
Fl et ch er o n h is si de in th e pa [d d]y wag on an d jus t so rt o f pu sh ed hi m in [it ]. ” Id

. at
13 9. Fl et ch er reca ll ed lying in th e pa dd y wag on an d he ari ng so m eo ne ta lk in g to hi m ; ho wev er, Fl et ch er was un ab le to op en hi s e y es

. Fl et ch er th en fel t an ot he r el ect ric
sh oc k, whi ch wok e hi m up

. He lo ok ed up an d sa w a bi g li gh t in hi s face

. He cl os ed

5

hi s ey es ag ai n bu t co ul d st il l he ar ta lk in g. Fl et ch er th en lo ok ed up an d s a w a l ig ht
sh in in g in hi s face ag ai n. He th en he ard an of fic er sa y , “ W at ch y ou r he ad .” Ju ry Tria l
Pro ceed in gs Tran sc rip t, V o l

. II, at 34

. The n, acco rd in g to Fl et ch er, th e do or was sl am m ed on hi s h ead

.

By co n tra st , th e of

fic ers rep or te d th at as th ey “ were at te m pt in g to lo ad [Fl et ch er] in to th e ba ck of th e [p ad dy wag on ], he be cam e co m ba ti ve on ce ag ai n an d
ki ck ed [Offi cer Mar to ran o] in th e rig ht kn ee.” Ju ry Tria l Pro ceed in gs Tran sc rip t, Vol

. III, at 15 . Th e of

fic ers th en “ su bd ue d [Fl et ch er] a n d l o a d e d [ hi m ] in to th e cru is er.”
Id

.

Fl et ch er was in th e pa dd y wag on whe n EMTs arri ve d at 8: 58 p.m

. The EMTs

as ke d Fl et ch er if he wan te d m ed ic al tre at m en t, an d Fl et ch er di d no t res po nd

. Fl et ch er do es no t re m em

be r an y EMTs sp eak in g wit h h im . The EMT wh o a ss es se d F le tc he r

The of fic ers ack no wled ge th at Offi cer Mo to n’s ta se r was us e d t w i c e on 5 Fl et ch er th at ev en in g, bu t th ey cl ai m th at Offi cer Mar to ran o fir ed it an d th at Offi cer Mo to n ha nd ed it to Offi cer Mar to ran o to us e. Acco rd in g to th e po li ce rep or t, th e two
ta se r fir in gs oc cu rred du rin g th e fir st al te rcat io n, jus t be fo re Fl et ch er was ha nd cu ffed

. The reco rd sh owe d th at th ree ta se r fir in gs du rin g Offi cer Mo to n’s sh ift

. The fir st was

so on aft er th e sh ift be ga n, at 6: 40 p.m

. Offi cer Mo to n’s se rg ean t co nf irmed th is fir in g

as an ex pe ct ed te st -fi rin g ti m e. The ot he r fir in gs were at 8: 52 p.m

. an d 8: 56 p.m

. The
pe de st ria n- ch eck cal l on Fl et ch er oc cu rred a t 8 : 21 p.m

. The ti m e sp an be twee n th e pe de st ria n- ch eck an d t he sec on d fi rin g i s ap pr ox im at el y 30 m in ut es

.
-6

-te st ifi ed th at “ th e po li ce si gn ed t he refu sa l [o f tra ns po rt]” to ta ke Fl et ch er to th e

ho sp it al

. Id

. at 83

. The EMT id en ti fie d O f f i c e r To mlin so n as “ th e wit ne ss to th e refu sa l.” Id

. at 8 5. Th e EMTs lef t at 9: 12 p.m

.

Offi cer Carro ll th en dr ov e Fl et ch er to th e ci ty jail

. On arriv al

, Offi cer Carro ll

te st ifi ed th at o f

f i c e r s ha d to ho ld Fl et ch er up to en ab le hi m to walk in si de th e jail

. Acco rd in g to Offi cer Carr ol l, “ If th ey wou ld ha ve le t hi m go , he pr ob ab ly wou ld ha ve jus t dr op pe d to th e gr ou nd .” Ju ry Tria l Pro ceed in gs Tran sc rip t, Vol

. I, at 14 0. Fl et ch er

was no t u nd er t he in flu en ce o f dr ug s o r al co ho l up on hi s arri va l t o t he jail . Fle tc he r

rem ai ne d i n h an dc uf

fs fro m hi s i ni ti al arres t u nt il th ey were re m ov ed at t he jail

.

Due to hi s i nju rie s, Fl et ch er was in th e jail ’s in fir m ary fo r si x da y s. He ha d a

swo ll en face

, pa in

, ab ras io ns , an d br ui si ng al l ov er hi s bo dy, in cl ud in g hi s lo wer ba ck

an d he ad

. W hi le at th e jail

, th e on ly m ed ic al te st co nd uc t e d w as a ch es t x- ray. Fl et ch er was th en ta ke n to Perr y Co un ty, Mi ss ou ri, on a tra ffi c warra nt

. Fl et ch er

rem ai ne d in Perr y Co un ty ja i l fo r ab ou t a week

. Perr y Co un ty th en tra ns po rte d
Fl et ch er to Perr y Co un ty Mem or ia l Hos pi ta l be cau se hi s co nd it io n wor se ne d.
Ult im at el y , Fl et ch er was ta ke n to St

. Lou is Uni ve rs it y (SLU) Hos pi ta l. W hi le th ere, sk ul l x- rays were ta ke n an d hi s crea ti ne le ve ls were ch eck ed

. A rad i o l o g y rep or t

rev eal ed he ha d a br ok en no se , br ok en ey e so ck et , ot he r faci al frac tu res , an d in te rn al
br ai n bl eed in g. The crea ti ne le v e l s r ev eal ed th at Fl et ch er’s ki dn ey s were da m ag ed

an d th at he was ne ari ng ren al fai lu re. He st ay ed in SLU Hos pi ta l’s I.C.U. fo r two
week s.

Fl et ch er was ch arg ed wit h dr ug po ss es si on , res is ti ng arre st , an d as sa ul t on an of fic er. The ro ck -li ke su bs ta nc e th at Fl et ch er al le ge dl y di sc ard ed was te st ed a nd

pr ov ed no t to be dr ug s. The pr os ecu ti ng at to rn ey ’s of fic e dr op pe d al l ch arg es ag ai ns t
Fl et ch er.

-7

-Fl et ch er fil ed a ci vi l rig ht s act io n ag ai ns t Offi cers Carr ol l, Mar to ran o, Mo to n,

an d Tom li ns on , th e SL PD Bo ard an d it s m em be rs , th e Ci ty of St

. Lou is

, th e

co nt ract or op erat in g th e jail in fir m ary (“ Co riz on ”), so m e of Co riz on ’s em pl oyees, th e Perr y Co un ty Sh eri ff’s Dep art m en t, an d th e Perr y C o u n t y Mem or ia l Hos pi ta l.
Fl et ch er al le ge d fed eral an d st at e-l aw cl ai m s of ex ces si ve fo r c e a g a i n st each of th e fo ur de fen da nt po li ce of

fic ers

. Fl et ch er al so al le ge d a cl ai m of co ns pi racy to vi ol at e hi s Fo ur th Am en dm en t ri gh ts

.

On Sep te m

be r 29
, 20 15
, de fen da nt Co riz on di sc lo se d pu rs ua nt to Fed eral Ru le
of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 26 (a)( 2) it s ret ai ne d m ed ic al ex pe rt Dr. Arn ol d Bern s. Dr. Bern s’s

co ve r le tt er rev eal ed th at he is bo ard -cer ti fie d in m ed ic in e an d ne p h ro lo gy an d is
fam il ia r wit h an d ex pe rie nc ed in a l l b ran ch es an d as pe ct s of cl in ic al ne ph ro lo gy, in cl ud in g acu te ki dn ey in jury, ch ro ni c ki d n e y di se as e, en d- st ag e ren al di se as e, an d
di al y si s. Dr. Bern s res id es an d pr act ic es in Ch ic ag o, Ill in oi s. Dr. Bern s al so in cl ud ed
hi s ed uc a t i o na l, tra in in g, an d pr of es si on al ex pe rie nc e. Dr. Bern s op in ed th at “ [t]he

pr ox i mat e cau se of Mr. Fl et ch er’s acu te ki dn ey in jury wit h as so ci at ed m et ab ol ic

co m pl ic at io ns was tra um at ic rha bd om y ol y si s. The rh ab do m y ol y si s oc cu rred at th e 6
ti m e of hi s arre st on Mar ch 6 a n d w a s du e to di rect m us cl e tra um a.” Pl ai nt iff ’s
Res po ns e to Defen da nt ’s Object io n to th e Adm is si on of An y Test im on y fro m th e Dep os it io n of D r

. A r n ol d Bern s at 13
, Flet ch er v. To mli ns on , No.
4: 14 -cv -0 09 99 -RLW (E. D. Mo. Au g. 7 , 20 16 ), ECF No. 1 79

.

Fl et ch er’s co un se l pa id fo r an d to ok th e de po si ti on of Dr. Bern s on Ja nu ary 13
, 20 16 . Cou ns el for th e o ffi cers cro ss -ex am in ed Dr. Bern s d ur in g t ha t d ep os it io n.

“ [R]hab do m

y ol y si s [is ] a co nd it io n th at m ay oc cu r whe n m us cl e ti ss ue br eak s 6 do wn an d rel eas es su bs ta nc es in to th e bl oo ds tre am th at ov erwh el m th e ki dn e ys

. Rh ab do m y ol y si s rep or te dl y can be cau se d by m an y fact or s, in cl ud in g bu t no t li m it ed
to dr ug us e or tra um a by el ect ric al ch arg e or ph y si cal fo rce.” La sh v. Hol li s , 52 5 F.3 d 63 6, 6 38 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8)

.
-8

-Pu rs ua nt to th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r, Fl et ch er s e r v e d hi s de po si ti on

de si gn at io ns , i nc lu di ng th e d ep os it io n d es ig na ti on for Dr. Bern s, o n t he de fen da nt s

on Ju ly 19
, 20 16

. Twent y da y s be fo re tri al

, pe r th e pr et ria l or de r, Fl et ch er fil ed no ti ce
t h a t he “ m ay read th e fo ll owi ng de po si ti on po rti on s in to ev id en ce du rin g hi s

cas e-i n- ch ie f

. . . [f]rom th e de po si ti on of Dr. Bern s.” Pl ai n t i f f ’s D e s ig na ti on s of
Dis co ve ry an d Dep os it io ns at 1, 4, Flet ch er v. To mli ns on , No. 4: 14 -cv -0 09 99 -RLW (E.D. Mo

. Ju ly 19
, 20 16 ), ECF No. 16 5. Fl et ch er al so fil ed a wit ne ss li st , st at in g th at
h e “ m ay cal l

. . . Arn ol d Bern s, M.D.” Pl ai nt iff ’s W it ne ss Lis t at 1, Flet ch e r v

. To mli ns on , No. 4: 14 -cv -0 09 99 -RLW (E.D. Mo

. Ju ly 19
, 2 0 1 6 )

, ECF No. 16 4. The
di st ric t co ur t’s cas e m an ag em en t or de r req ui red th e de fen da nt s to m ak e an y ob jecti on s to th e de po si ti on de si gn at io ns at le as t te n da y s be fo re tri al

. The de fen da nt s fil ed no ob

jecti on s to de si gn at ed pa rts of Dr. Bern s’s de po si ti on an d f i l e d no

cro ss -d es ig na ti on of t he de po si ti on pa rts

.

On Aug us t 4, 20 16
, th e de fen d a n t s l earn ed th at Fl et ch er in te nd ed to as k th e

co ur t fo r le av e to read fro m th e de po si ti on of Dr. Bern s, an ex pe rt wit ne ss pr ev io us ly
id en ti fie d no t by Fl et ch er, bu t by de fen da nt Co riz on , who was no lo ng er a pa rty to th e

cas e. On Aug us t 5, 20 16
, th e de fen da nt s ob jecte d to th e ad m is si on of an y ou t-o f-co ur t

te st im on y fro m Dr. B e rn s, m ak in g si x arg um en ts

. Defen da nt s arg ue d th at (1 ) Dr.
Bern s can no t qu al ify as an ex pe rt u n de r th e an al y si s req ui red un de r Dau be rt v. Mer re ll Dow Pha rma c e ut ic al s, In c. , 50 9 U.S. 57 9 (1 99 3) ; (2 ) un le ss Dr. Bern s
ap pe ars li ve at tri al

, th e de fen da nt s will be de pr iv ed of th e op po rtu ni ty to sh ow th at
Dr. Bern s’s op in io ns are in ad m is si bl e un de r Dau be rt ; (3 ) Fl et ch er di d no t id en ti fy Dr.
Bern s as an ex pe rt wit ne ss in hi s in it ia l di sc lo su res or i n r e s p o n s e to th e di sc ov ery
req ue st s th at th e d e f

en da nt s su bm it te d to Fl et ch er; (4 ) th e de fen da nt s le arn ed fo ur da y s pr io r to tri al th at Fl et ch er ha d no in te nt io n of cal li ng Dr. Bern s to te st ify li ve at
tri al bu t in st ead in te nd ed to read po rti on s of Dr. Bern s’s de po si ti on tra ns cri pt , whi ch
is i n a d mi s si bl e he ars ay un de r Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 80 3; (5 ) su ch de po si ti on
tra ns cri pt te st im on y is n o t ad m is si bl e un de r Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 80 4 be cau se Dr. Bern s m eet s no ne of th e cri te ria req ui red to qu al ify as an “ un av ai la bl e” wit ne ss ;

-9

-an d (6 ) th e de fen da nt s wou ld be se ve rel y pr ejud ic ed by ad m is si on of th e de po si ti on

tra ns cri pt te st im on y be c a u s e t h e y ha ve no t ha d a ch an ce to de po se Dr. Bern s as an

ex pe rt f or Fle tc he r.

The m or ni ng of tri al

, de fen se co un se l di sc us se d its obj ec tio n to the int ro du ct io n of Dr. Bern s’s de po si ti on te st im on y wit h th e co ur t. The co ur t as ke d whe th er de fen se

co un se l was pr es en t du rin g Dr. Bern s’s de po si ti on an d whe th er co un se l ha d th e
op po rtu ni ty to cro ss -ex am in e Dr. Bern s. Defen se co un se l an s wered y es

. The co ur t

st at ed

, “ I’m go in g to al lo w Defen da nt s to us e th e de po de si gn at io ns th at were m ad e
to cr o s s

- e xa m in [e] an y th in g th at Dr. Bern s te st ifi es in th is tri al .” Ju ry Tria l
Pro ceed in gs Tran sc rip t, Vo l. I, at 15

.

Fl et ch er’s co un se l th en cl ari fie d th at Fl et ch er wou ld be rel y in g on Dr. Bern s’s
de po si ti on te st im on y de sp it e li st in g hi m as a “m a y c al l” wit ne ss

. Bas ed on a le tt er fro m Dr. Bern s, Fl et ch er’s co un se l arg ue d th at Dr. Bern s was “ un av ai la bl e” un de r th e fed eral ru le s. If un av ai la bl e, Dr. Bern s’s de po si ti on wou ld be ad m is si bl e. In res po ns e, de fen se co un se l st at ed th at D r

. Bern s ha d be en on th e “ m ay cal l” li st an d th at th e de fen da nt s di d no t le arn of Dr. Bern s’s al le ge d un av ai la bi li ty un ti l fo ur da y s pr io r to
tri al

. The di st ric t co ur t al lo wed Fl et ch er’s co un se l to pr es en t po rti on s of Dr. Bern s’s
d e p o si ti on bu t req ui red hi m to in fo rm de fen se co un se l whi ch pa rts wou ld be us ed

. The co ur t be li ev ed Dr. Bern s qu al ifi ed as an un av ai la bl e wit ne ss be ca u s e h e was

m or e th an 10 0 m il es away an d hi s abs en ce had no t been st rat eg ic al ly arra ng ed

. The

cas e p ro ceed ed to tri al

.

At th e cl os e of ev id en ce, th e di s t r ic t co ur t gr an te d th e de fen da nt s a di rect ed

ve rd ic t on th e co ns pi racy clai m

. Fl et ch er the n vo lu nt ari ly di sm is se d all of hi s st at ela w c la im s, le av in g on ly his fed eral § 1 98 3 cl ai m s. Ove r th e de fen da nt s’ o bjec ti on , th e di st ric t co ur t su bm it te d an in st ru ct io n to th e jury pe rm it ti ng it to ret ur n a ve rd ic t
fo r pu ni ti ve da m ag es ag ai ns t Offi cer M ot on

.

-1 0-The jury fo un d in fav or of Offi cers Tom li ns on an d Carr ol l an d ag ai ns t Offi cers

Mar to ran o an d Mo to n. On each of th e cl ai m s ag ai ns t Offi cers Mar to ran o an d Mo to n, th e jury award ed co m

pe ns at or y da m ag es of $1 00
, 0 0 0 an d pu ni ti ve da m ag es of $2 00 ,00 0.

Offi cers Mar to ran o an d Mo to n fil ed va rio us po st -tr ia l m ot io ns , in cl ud in g a

mo ti on fo r ne w tri al ba se d up on th e al le ge d erro ne ou s ad m is si on of Dr. Ber n s ’s
de po si ti on te st im on y ; a m ot io n fo r jud gm en t a s a m at te r of la w ba se d up on th e al le ge d la ck of ev id en ce ag ai ns t Offi cer Mo to n; an d a m ot io n to am en d th e jud gm en t
ba se d up on th e al le ge d fai lu re to de du ct th e am ou nt s th at Fl et ch er rece iv ed fro m hi s

se tt le m en ts wit h C or iz on an d P erry Cou nt y

.

Rel ev an t to th is ap pe al

, th e co ur t fo un d no ba si s fo r gr an ti ng a ne w tri al

,

co nc lu di ng th at Dr. Bern s was di sc lo se d as a wit ne ss b y C o r i z o n an d was

cro ss -ex am in ed th or ou gh ly by de fen se co un se l. The di st ric t co ur t fo un d t h a t D r. Bern s was un av ai la bl e un de r Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 32 (a) p ur su an t to th e le tt er fro m

Dr. Bern s’s Ch ic ag o o ffi ce s ta ti ng th at he wou ld be pra ct ic in g m ed ic in e in Ch ic ag o. In ad di ti on , th e co ur t no te d th at Fl et ch er pu tt in g Bern s on th e “ m ay cal l”
li st di d no t pr ecl ud e Fl et ch er fro m us in g hi s de po si ti on , whi ch was cl earl y id en ti fie d
in Fle tc he r’s de po si ti on de si gn at io ns . The cou rt a ls o h el d t ha t t he de fen da nt s co ul d

no t arg ue po st -tr ia l th at Dr. Bern s was un qu al ifi ed to pr ov id e ex pe rt te st im on y whe n th ey ne ve r fil ed a Dau be rt m ot io n ch al le ng in g hi s qu al ifi cat io ns

. The co ur t fo un d th at
th e d efen da nt s h ad waiv ed th e is su e.

The co ur t al so ad dr es se d Offi cers Mo to n an d Mar to ran o’s m ot io ns to al te r or

am en d th e jud gm en t bas ed on th ei r ob jecti on at tri al to th e su bm is si on of Fl et ch er’s
cl ai ms f o r p u ni ti ve da m ag es an d to th e jury in st ru ct io ns on pu ni ti ve da m ag es

. The

co ur t h e l d t h a t t h e de fen da nt s fai le d to sh ow a su ffi ci en t ba si s fo r al te rin g or

am en di ng th e jud gm en t be cau se th e jury cl earl y be li ev ed Fl et ch er’s ve rs io n of ev en ts
wit h res pe ct to Offi cers Mo to n a n d M a r t o ran o. Tha t ve rd ic t refl ect ed a fin di ng of

-1 1-m al ic e, reck le s s n es s, or cal lo us in di ffer en ce to Fl et ch er’s rig ht to be free fro m

ex ces si ve fo rce. The co ur t fo un d su ffi ci en t ev id en ce of m al ic e, reck le ss ne ss , or cal lo us in di ffer en ce to su pp or t th e ve rd ic t ba se d up on Fl et ch er’s ex te ns iv e in juri es

an d th e te st im on y th at he was b eat en ev en aft er he co m pl ie d wit h th e of

fic ers ’

req ue st s an d aft er he was ha nd cu ffed

. The co ur t no te d th e jury’ s rel ia nc e up on ex pe rt
wit ne ss te st im on y th at Fl et ch er’s in juri es were cau se d by t h e act io ns of Offi cers M o to n an d Mar to ran o. As a res ul t, th e jury ha d a reas on ab le ba si s fo r awar d i n g
pu ni ti ve da m ag es to Fle tc he r.

The co ur t award ed Fl et ch er $2 1,8 98 .03 in ex pe ns es an d award ed Fl et ch er 55

pe rcen t o f hi s re qu es te d a tt or ne y s’ fees ($1 64 ,07 1.8 8)

.

II. Dis cu ss io n On ap pe al

, Offi cers Mar to ran o an d Mo to n arg ue : (1 ) th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in
al lo win g Fl et ch er to read Dr. Bern s’s de po si ti on t e s t i mo n y at tri al ; (2 ) th e di st ric t

co ur t erre d in al lo win g th e jury to award pu ni ti ve da m ag es ag ai ns t Offi cer Mo to n wit ho ut ev id en ce th at Offi cer Mo to n en ga ge d in an y ex ces si ve fo rce ag ai ns t Fl et ch er;

an d (3 ) th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in f a i li ng to de du ct fro m Fl et ch er’s jud gm en t th e

am ou nt s t ha t h e rec ei ve d fr om hi s s et tl em en ts wit h o th er d efen da nt s.

A. Exp er t Te st imo ny “We rev ie w th e de ni al of a m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al fo r a cl ear ab us e of
di sc ret io n, wit h th e ke y qu es ti on be in g whe th er a ne w tri al is ne ces sa ry to pr ev en t a

m is carr ia ge of

jus ti ce.” Man ni ng v. Jo ne s , 87 5 F.3 d 40 8, 41 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (ci ta ti on

om it te d)

, cer t. de ni ed

, 13 8 S. Ct

. 17 07 (2 01 8)

. “ The de ci si on to ad mi t d e p o s i ti on
te st im on y wil l no t be rev ers ed ab se nt a cl ear sh owi ng th e tri al c o u rt ab us ed it s di sc ret io n.” Na ti on wi de Mut

. Fir e In s. Co

. v. Dun ki n , 85 0 F.2 d 44 1, 44 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 88 ) (p er cu ria m ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

-1 2-Offi cers Mar to ran o an d Mo to n m ak e fo ur arg um en ts in su pp or t of th ei r

co nt en ti on th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in al lo win g Fl et ch er to read Dr.
B e rn s’s de po si ti on te st im on y at tri al : (1 ) Dr. Bern s’s de po si ti on te st imo n y w a s in ad m is si bl e be cau se th ey were ne ve r al lo wed to cro ss -ex am in e Dr. Bern s at tri al or

as an ex pe rt wit ne ss fo r Fl et ch er; (2 ) Dr. Bern s’s ou t-o f-co ur t te st i mo ny was in ad m is si bl e be cau se Fl et ch er fai le d to sh ow th at Dr. Bern s was “ un av ai la bl e” un de r Fed eral Ru le of Ev id en ce 80 4( a)(5 ); (3 ) Fl et ch er di d no t sh ow th at Dr. Bern s was
qu al ifi ed to ren de r hi s op i n i o n s ba se d so le ly up on a rev ie w of so m e un id en ti fie d

m ed ic al reco rd s; an d (4 ) Fl et ch er d ep riv ed th e o ffi cers of a fai r tr ia l an d pre jud ic ed
th em by no t pr od uc in g Dr. Bern s fo r cro ss -ex am in at io n an d im pe ach m en t at tri al

. W e

co ns id er ea ch arg um en t i n t ur n.

1. Cr os s- exa min at io n Offi cers Mar to ran o an d Mo to n arg ue t ha t Dr. Bern s’s de po si ti on was in ad m is si bl e be cau se th ey ne ve r ha d th e op po rtu ni ty to cro ss -ex am in e Dr. Bern s at
tri al or as an ex pe rt wit ne ss fo r Fl et ch er. In su pp or t of th is arg um en t, th ey as se rt th at (1 ) Fl et ch er ne ve r id en ti fie d Dr. Bern s du rin g di sc ov ery, (2 ) Fl et ch er di d no t id en ti fy
Dr. Bern s aft er di sc ov ery cl os ed

, an d (3 ) th ey were de ni e d th ei r rig ht to cro ss

ex am in e Dr. Bern s ei th er at tri al or a s an ex pe rt f or Fle tc he r.

The of fic ers ’ arg um en t fli es in th e face of un y ie ld in g fact s. The reco rd sh ows th at on Sep te m

be r 29
, 20 15
, de fen da nt Co riz on no ti fie d al l pa rti es th at Dr. Bern s was it s ret ai ne d ex pe rt wit ne ss

. The of fic ers do no t di sp ut e th at in Ja nu ary 20 16
, Fl et ch er’s co un se l se rv ed on de fen da nt s’ co un se l a “ Su pp le m en ta l Dis cl os ur e of Exp ert s” in whi ch Fl et ch er st at ed th at he m ig ht rel y on Dr. Bern s’s t e s t im on y

. On
Ja nu ary 13
, 20 16
, Fl et ch er’s co un se l— no t Co riz on —p ai d fo r an d to ok th e de po si ti on of Dr. Bern s. Cou ns el fo r th e o ffi cers ex te ns iv el y cro ss -ex am in ed Dr. Bern s d ur in g th at de po si ti on

.

-1 3-The di st ric t co ur t se t tri al fo r Aug us t 8, 20 16

. The di st ric t co ur t or de red th e

pa rti es to de si gn at e an y de po si ti on te st im on y th at th ey in te nd ed to read in to ev id en ce 20 da y s pr io r to tri al an d to fil e an y ob jecti on to su ch te st im on y te n da y s pr io r to tri al

. In acco rd an ce wit h th e di st ric t co ur t’s pr et ria l or de r, on Ju ly 19
, 20 16
, Fl et ch er fil ed
hi s de po si ti on de si gn at io n s

. S p eci fic al ly, Fl et ch er pr ov id ed th at he “ m ay read th e fo ll owi ng de po si ti on po rti on s in t o ev id en ce du rin g hi s cas e-i n- ch ie f” an d in cl ud ed

“ th e de po si ti on of Dr. Bern s” wit h th e de si gn at ed po rti on s of th at de po si t i o n

. Pl ai nt iff ’s De si gn at io ns of Dis co ve ry an d Dep os it io ns at 1, 4. The of f i c e rs di d no t 7
ob ject te n da y s be fo re tri al in acco rd an ce wit h th e pr et ria l or de r; in st ead

, th ey wait ed

u n t i l Aug us t 5, 20 16
, th e la st bu si ne ss da y be fo re tri al

, to fil e an y ob jecti o n

. Th e of fic ers arg ue d th at th ey were no ti fie d th e da y pr io r th at Fl et ch er in te nd ed to r e a d
fro m Dr. Bern s’s de po si ti on in st ead of pr od uc in g Dr. Bern s as a li ve wit ne ss at tri al

. Th e co ur t ov erru le d th is ob jecti on

. Afte r th e di st ric t co ur t pe rm it te d Fl et ch er to
in tro du ce pa rts of Dr. Bern s’s de po si ti on in to t h e r e co rd , t he of fic ers ’ co un se l read
th e p rio r cro ss -ex am in at io n o f Dr. Bern s t o t he jury at tri al

.

Bas ed on th e reco rd

, we co nc lu de th at th e of fic ers were no t de pr iv ed of an

op po rt un it y to cro ss -ex am in e Dr. Bern s fo r tri al pu rp os es fo r th ree reas on s. Fi rs t, th e of fic ers ha d th e op po rtu ni ty to cro ss -ex am in e Dr. Bern s du rin g hi s d e p o s i t i o n on Ja nu ary 13
, 20 16
, an d ex te ns iv el y di d so

. Seco nd

, Fl et ch er no ti fie d th e of fic e r s in

acco rd an ce w i t h t he pr et ria l or de r th at he “ m ay read ” de si gn at ed po rti on s of Dr.
Bern s’s de po si ti on at tri al

. The of fic ers ha d te n da y s fo ll owi ng Fl et ch er’s de si gn at io n
to ob ject; th ey ch os e no t to ob

ject. Thi rd

, th e co ur t pe rm it te d th e of fic ers ’ co un se l to

Fl et ch er se pa rat el y fil ed a wit ne ss li st . F le tc he r in di cat ed t h a t he “ m ay cal l” 7 Dr. Bern s. Pl ai nt iff ’s W it ne ss Lis t at 1. Thi s de si gn at io n can be co nt ras te d wit h two
ot he r wit ne ss es th at Fle tc he r in di cat ed th at he “ in te nd [ed ] to cal l” at t ria l. Id

.
-1 4-read th e pr io r cro ss -ex am in at io n of Dr. Bern s to th e jury at tri al

. The ir arg um en t th at 8

th ey were d ep riv ed of t he ir r ig ht to cro ss -ex am in e Dr. Bern s at tri al fai ls

.

2. Una va il ab le
The of fic ers ne xt arg ue th at Dr. Bern s’s ou t-o f-co u r t te st im on y was in ad m is si bl e be cau se Fl et ch er di d no t sh ow— an d th e di st ric t co ur t f a i l e d to
fin d— th at Dr. Bern s was “ u n a v a i l a bl e” un de r Ru le 80 4( a)(5 ). Sp eci fic al ly, th e of fic ers co nt en d t h a t F l e t c h er fai le d to sh ow th at he co ul d no t pr oc ur e Dr. Bern s’s

at te nd an ce b y

“ ot he r rea so na bl e m ean s.” F ed . R. Evi d. 8 04 (a)( 5)

.

W e be gi n wit h Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 32 (a)( 4) (B), whi ch pr ov id es th at

[a] part y

m ay us e fo r an y pu rp os e th e de po si ti on of a wit ne ss , whet he r

or no t a pa rty, if th e co ur t fin ds

. . . th at th e w i t n e s s i s mo re th an 10 0

m il es fro m th e pl ac e o f h e ari ng or tri al or is ou ts id e th e Uni te d St at es , un le ss it ap pe ars th at th e wit ne ss ’s ab se nc e w a s p r o cu red by th e pa rty of feri ng th e d ep os it io n.

W e ho ld th at Ru le 32 (a)( 4) (B) ga ve th e di st ric t co ur t d i s c ret io n to ad m it Dr.
Bern s’s de po si ti on te st im on y be cau se he was m or e th an 10 0 m il es away f r o m th e tri al

, an d Fl et ch er di d no t pr oc u r e h i s a b s en ce. Deci si on s fro m aro un d th e co un try
h a v e c o nc lu de d th at Ru le 32 (a)( 4) (B) op erat es as an in de pe nd en t ex cep ti on to t h e he ars ay rul e. W e ag ree. 9

Bec au se we co nc lu de th at th e of fic ers were no t de pr iv ed of th ei r op po rt un it y 8

to cro ss -ex am in e Dr. Bern s fo r tri al pu rp os es , we ne ed no t ad dr es s whe th er th ey were de pr iv ed of a fai r tr ia l o r pr ejud ic ed by D r. Bern s’s ab se nc e fro m th e tr ia l.

“ Our si st er ci rcu it s ha ve reco g n i z e d th at Ru le 32 (a) is an in de pe nd en t 9

ex cep ti on to th e he ars ay ru le .” Na ti on wi de Li fe In s. Co . v . Ri ch ar ds , 5 41 F.3 d 90 3, 91 4 (9 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (ci ti ng Uela nd v. Uni te d St at es , 29 1 F.3 d 99 3, 99 6 (7 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (“ Ru le 32 (a), as a free st an di ng ex cep ti on to th e he ars ay ru le

, is on e of th e ‘oth er

-1 5-As a res ul t, a de po ne nt who se “ te st im on y pr op erl y was ad m it te d un de r Ru le

32 (a)( 4) (B)

. . . ne ed no t al so m eet th e req ui rem en ts fo r ad m is si bi li ty se t fo rth in [Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e] 8 04 (b )(1 ). Rich ar ds , 54 1 F .3d at 91 4. Fed eral Ru le of 1 0

ru le s’ t o whi ch Fed . R . Ev id . 8 02 refe rs . Evi de nc e au th or iz ed by Rul e 3 2( a) can no t be ex cl ud ed as he ars ay , un le ss it wou ld be in ad m is si bl e ev en if de li ve red in co ur t.”) ; Ang el o v. Arms tr on g W

or ld In du s., In c. , 11 F.3 d 95 7, 96 2– 63 ( 1 0 th Ci r. 19 93 ) (“ Dep os it io n te st im on y i s n o r m al ly in ad m is si bl e he ars ay , bu t Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 32 (a)

crea te s an ex cep ti on to th e he ars ay ru le s.”) ; S

. In d. Bro ad

., Lt d. v. FCC
, 93 5 F.2 d 13 40
, 13 41 –4 2 (D.C. Ci r. 19 91 ) (ack no wled gi ng th at Ru le 32 (a) crea te s an ex cep ti on to th e he ar s a y r u l e ) ; U

ni te d St at es v. Vesp e , 86 8 F.2 d 13 28
, 13 39 (3 d Ci r. 19 89 ) (s ta ti ng th at Ru le 32 (a)( 4) (B) “ co ns ti tu te s a n in de pe nd en t ex cep ti on to th e he ars ay

ru le ”); Ca re

y v. Bah ama Cr ui se Li ne s , 86 4 F.2 d 20 1, 20 4 n.2 (1 st Ci r. 19 88 ) (s ta ti ng tha t Ru le 32(a)(4 )(B) “ is m or e pe rm is si ve th an Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 80 4( a) (5 )” ))

.

Fed eral Ru le of Ev i d en ce 80 4( b) se ts fo rth th e ex cep ti on s th at “ are no t 1 0

e x c l u de d by th e ru le ag ai ns t he ars ay if th e de cl aran t is un av ai la bl e as a wit ne ss

. ” Sp eci fic al ly, su bs ect io n 80 4( b) (1 ) pr ov id es th at fo rm er te st im on y is an ex cep ti on to th e h ears ay

rul e if th at tes ti m on y

(A) w a s gi ve n as a wit ne ss at a tri al

, he ari ng , or la wfu l de po si ti on , whe th er g iv en du rin g t he cu rren t p ro ceed in g o r a d iff eren t o ne ; an d

( B ) i s no w o ffer ed ag ai ns t a pa rty wh o ha d— or , i n a ci vi l cas e, who se pr ed eces s o r i n in te res t ha d— an op po rtu ni ty an d si m il ar m ot iv e to de ve lo p i t b y

di rect , cro ss -, or red ire ct ex am in at io n.

Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 80 4( a) se ts fo rth th e cri te ria fo r be in g un av ai la b l e

. The of fic ers rel y on su bs ect io n 8 04 (a)( 5) , whi ch pro vi de s t ha t

[a] de cl aran t is co ns id ered to be un av ai la bl e as a wit ne ss if th e de cl aran t

. . . is ab se nt fro m th e tri al or he ari ng an d th e st at em en t’s pr op on en t ha s

no t b een ab le

, by pr oc es s o r o th er rea so na bl e mea ns , to pro cu re:

(A) th e de cl aran t’s at te nd an ce, in th e cas e of a he ars ay ex cep ti on un de r Ru le 80 4( b) (1 ) or (6) ; o r

-1 6-Evi de nc e 80 2 pr ov id es th at “ he ars ay is ad m is si bl e whe re al lo we d b y th e Fed eral

Ru le s of Evi de nc e, or ‘b y o t h e r r ul es pr es cri be d by th e Su pr em e Co ur t pu rs ua nt to

st at ut or y au th or it y or by Act of Co ng res s.’” Id

. (q uo ti ng Fed

. R. Evi d. 80 2 )

. “ Ru le
32 (a)( 4) (B) is on e of th es e ‘oth er ru le s.’” Id

. (q uo ti ng Fed

. R. Evi d. 80 2 ad vi s o r y

co m m it te e’s no te s) )

. “ Ru le 80 4 is irr el ev an t to [th e] an al y si s” of ad m is si on of
de po si ti on te st im on y un de r Ru le 32 (a) (4 )(B)

. Id

. at 91 5. But se e Leh man Bro

. Hol di ng s, In c. v. Na t’l Ban k of

Ark.

, 87 5 F. Su pp

. 2d 91 1, 92 2 (E.D. Ark

. 20 12 ) (“ The

pa rty se ek in g to ad m it th e de po si ti on m us t pr ov e th at th e req ui rem en ts of bo th Ru le
32 (a)( [4 ]) an d Rul e 80 4( b) (1 ) ha ve be en m et

. . . . ” (q uo ti ng In re Air Cr as h

, 72 0 F.
Su pp . 14 93 , 15 02 (D. Co. 1 98 9) )).

Here, th e reco rd refl ect s th at on Aug us t 4, 20 16
, Dr. Bern s wro te an d su bm it te d

a le tt er to th e of

fic ers ’ co un se l ad vi si ng th at he was un av ai la bl e fo r tri al “ du rin g th e ti m e pe rio d of Aug us t 8, 20 16 [,] th ro ug h Aug us t 12
, 20 1[ 6,] be cau se [h e wou ld ] be
bu sy in Ch ic ag o pr act ic in g m ed ic in e at [h is ] m ed ic al pr act ic es .” Pl ai nt iff ’s Res po ns e
to Defen da nt ’s Object io n to th e Adm is si on of Any Test i mon y fro m th e Dep os it io n of Dr. Arn ol d Bern s at 7. Giv en th at th e tri al wou ld ta ke pl ace in St

. Lou is

, Mi ss ou ri,
th is sa ti sf ie s Ru le 32 (a)( 4) (B)’s req ui rem en t th at th e wit ne ss be “ m or e th an 10 0 m il es fro m th e pl ace o f

. . . tri al .” The of fic ers ha ve pr od uc ed no reco rd ev id en ce to sh ow th at Fle tc he r pr oc ur ed Dr. Bern s’s ab se nc e. Se e id

.

The of fic ers al so arg ue th at th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to m ak e an ex pr es s fin di ng th at Dr. Bern s was “ un av ai la bl e.” Bec au se th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to m ak e an ex pr es s f i n di ng of un av ai la bi li ty, th e of fic ers co nt en d, Dr. Bern s’s de po si ti on op in i o n i s

( B ) th e de cl aran t’s at te nd an ce or te st im on y , in th e cas e of a h e a r s a y

ex cep ti on un de r Ru le 80 4( b) (2 ), (3 ), or (4) .”

(Em ph as is ad de d.)

-1 7-in ad m is si bl e he ars ay th at sh ou ld no t ha ve be en read to th e jury at tri al

. The of fic ers ’

arg um en t is di rect ly co nt rad ic te d by Dun ki n . I n th at c a s e , t h e ap pe ll an t arg ue d th at
th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by ad m it ti ng th e de po si ti on te st im on y of he r at to rn ey

. 85 0 F.2 d

a t 4 4 3

. The di st ric t co ur t ob se rv ed th at th e ap pe ll an t’s at to rn ey was no t av ai la b l e be cau se he was req ui red to ap pe ar in an ot he r cas e in an ot he r ci ty on th e sa m e da y

. Id

. Bo th pa rti es ag reed th at th e ci ty in qu es ti on was m or e th an 10 0 m il es fro m th e pl ace of th e tri al ; ho wev er, th e ap pe ll an t arg u e d t h a t t h e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to “ m ak e a

s p e c i f ic fin di ng to th at effe ct ” un de r Ru le 32 (a)( 4) (B). Id

. Thi s co ur t he ld

, “By
ad m it ti ng th e de po si ti on of [th e ap pe ll an t’s ] at to rn ey , h owe ve r, th e co ur t imp li ci tl y fo un d th e co nd it io ns of ru le 32 (a)( [4 ])(B) ha d bee n sat is fie d.” Id

. (em ph as is ad de d) (ci ta ti on o mi t t ed ). The refo re, th e co ur t fo un d “ no ab us e of di sc ret io n in th e di st ric t

co ur t’s ad m is si on of th e de po si ti on .” I d

. Dun ki n st an ds fo r th e pr op os it io n th at no

ex pr es s fi nd in g i s re qu ire d.

Here, t he di st ric t co ur t m ad e a fi nd in g t ha t t he co nd it io ns of R ul e 3 2( a) were

sa ti sf ie d ba se d on Dr. Bern s’s le tt er da te d Aug us t 4, 20 16
, th at he was “ un av ai la bl e
to at te nd tri al in Mi ss ou ri du rin g th e ti m e pe rio d of Aug us t 8, 20 16 [,] th ro ug h Aug us t
12
, 2 01 [6 ,] be cau se [h e wou ld ] be bu sy in Ch ic ag o pr act ic in g m ed ic in e at [h is ]

m ed ic al pr act ic es .” Pl ai nt iff ’s Res po ns e to Defen da nt ’s Object io n to th e Adm is si on of Any Test im on y fro m th e Dep os it io n of Dr. Arn ol d Bern s at 7. Dr. Bern s st at ed th at
he “ li ve [s ] in th e Ch ic ag o area a n d [ i s ] ge ne ral ly no t av ai la bl e to at te nd tri al in St

. Lou is

, MO.” Id

. On th e fir st da y of tri al

, th e di st ric t co ur t no te d th at Dr. Bern s ha d
“fi l e d a le tt er th at ’s pa rt of th e reco rd of th e co ur t th at in di cat es he can ’t be he r e be cau se he ’s p ract ic in g m ed ic in e.” Ju ry Tria l Pro ceed in gs Tran sc rip t, Vol . I , a t 17

. Bas ed on Dun ki n , th e di st ric t co u rt’s ad m is si on of th e de po si ti on an d
ack no wled gm en t of th is le tt er was su ffi ci en t. It di d no t ha ve to ex pr es sl y st at e on th e

reco rd th at it was fi nd in g Dr. Be rn s “ un av ai la bl e.”

-1 8-3. Qua li fi ed Exp er t The of fic ers arg ue th at Fl et ch er m ad e no sh owi ng th at Dr. Bern s was qu al ifi ed

to ren de r hi s o p i n i o n s ba se d so le ly up on a rev ie w of so m e un id en ti fie d m ed ic al

reco rd s. The of

fic ers po in t ou t th at Dr. Bern s was th e ex pe rt wit ne ss fo r Co riz on , no t
Fl et ch er. Acco rd in g to th e of fic ers , ne it he r Co riz on no r Fl et ch er ev er m ad e a sh owi ng of Dr. Bern s’s q ua li fic at io ns

.

On Sep te m

be r 29
, 20 15
, de fen da nt Co riz on di sc lo se d Dr. Bern s as it s ret ai ne d

ex pe rt pu rs ua nt to Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 26 (a)( 2)

. On Nov em be r 24
, 20 15
, th e di st ric t co ur t is su ed a m em or an du m an d or de r on Fl et ch er’s m ot io n to am en d th e

cas e m an ag em en t or de r. Th a t or de r pr ov id ed

, in rel ev an t pa rt, th at “ an y m ot io n to

ex cl ud e te st im on y pu rs ua nt to D au be rt v. Mer re ll Dow Pha rma ceu ti ca ls

, In c ., 50 9
U.S. 57 9 (1 99 3) [,] or Ku hmo Ti re Co

. Lt d. v. Ca rmi ch ae l

, 52 6 U.S. 13 7 (1 99 9)

, m us t
be fil ed no l a t e r t h a n Ja nu ary 15
, 20 16 .” Mem or an du m an d Ord er at 2, Flet ch er v. To mli ns on , No. 4: 14 -cv -0 09 99 -RLW (E.D. Mo

. Nov

. 24
, 20 15 ), ECF No. 11 3 (b ol d

om it te d)

.

Fl et ch er’s co un se l pa id fo r an d to ok th e de po si ti on of Dr. Bern s on Ja nu ary 13
, 20 16

. Co un se l f

o r t he po li ce of

fic ers ex te ns iv el y cro ss -ex am in ed Dr. Bern s du rin g th at de po si ti on

.

As th e di st ric t co ur t po in t e d o u t , “ Defen da nt s ne ve r fil ed a Dau be rt m ot io n ch al le ng in g [Dr. Bern s’s] qua li fic at io ns

. Lik ewis e, Defen da nt s di d no t rai se th is is su e be fo re th e Co ur t whe n Defen da nt s ad dr es se d th e te st im on y of Dr. Bern s im m ed ia te ly
be fo re t he tri al .” Mem or an du m an d Ord er at 7, Flet ch er

v. To mli ns on (Flet ch er

II)

, No. 4: 14 -cv -0 09 99 -RLW (E.D. Mo

. Oct. 1 4
, 20 16 ), ECF No. 21 9 (h erei na fte r,

“ Flet c h e r II

”). As a res ul t, th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e de fen da nt s ha d

“ waiv ed th e ri gh t t o a ss ert th at Dr. Bern s was un qu al ifi ed .” Id

.

-1 9-On ap pe al

, th e of fic ers arg ue th at th ey di d no t waiv e th ei r ob jecti on to th e he ars ay op in io n of Dr. Bern s be cau se th ey ob jecte d as so on as Fl et ch er di sc lo se d th at , rat he r th an pr od uc e Dr. Bern s fo r cro ss -ex am in at io n at tri al

, he wou ld in st ead at te m pt

to read Dr. Bern s’s de po si ti on op in io ns i n t o ev id en ce. Thi s be la te d ob jecti on ha s

no th in g to do wit h Dr. Bern s’s qu al if ic at io ns

. Lik e th e di st ric t co ur t, we co nc lu de th at
th e of fic ers waiv ed th ei r Dau be rt ch al le ng e to Dr. Bern s’s qu al ifi cat io ns be cau se th e de ad li ne was Ja nu ary 15
, 20 16
, an d th e of fic ers di d no t su bm it a Dau be rt ch al le ng e
to Dr. Bern s b y

th is de ad li ne

.

In su m m ary, we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in
ad m it ti ng Dr. Bern s’s d ep os it io n t es ti m on y

. Se e Dun ki n , 85 0 F .2d at 4 43

.

B. Pun it iv e Dama ge s Offi cer M o t o n arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in su bm it ti ng Fl et ch er’s

pu ni ti ve da m ag es cl ai m ag ai ns t hi m to th e jury be cau se Fl et ch er pr od uc ed no

ev id en ce sh owi ng th at he us ed ex ces si ve fo rce, act ed wit h mal i c e o r raci al bi as , or

cau se d an y of Fl et ch er’s in juri es

. Fi rs t, Offi cer Mo to n as se rts th at no ev id en ce at tri al
sh ows th at he us ed ex ces si ve fo rce ag ai ns t Fl et ch er be cau se Fl et ch er ne ve r id en ti fie d
hi m as on e of t h e of

fic ers who at ta ck ed or in jure d hi m du rin g th e arre st

. Offi cer Mo to n co nt en ds th at Fl et ch er te st ifi ed th at th e of fic ers who at ta ck ed hi m were whi te , whi le Offi c e r M ot on is bl ack

. He al so m ai nt ai ns th at Fl et ch er id en ti fie d Offi cer Mar to ran o a s t he off

ic er wh o h it hi m . Fin al ly, Offi cer M ot on cit es ev id en ce t ha t h e he ld Fl et ch er on ly aro un d hi s le gs , whe re Fl et ch er s u s t ai ne d no in juri es

. Seco nd

, Offi cer M o t o n mai n ta in s th at no ev id en ce at tri al sh ows th at he cau se d an y of
Fl et ch er’s in

juri es

. Aga in

, he as se rts th at Fl et ch er id en ti fie d Offi cer Mar to ran o as th e of fic er who in

jure d hi m

. Fu rth erm or e, th e ex pe rt wit ne s s e s d i d no t id en ti fy an y in juri es to Fl et ch er’s lo wer bo dy, whe re Offi cer Mo to n ha nd le d Fl et c h e r

. In th e ab se nc e o f e v i d en ce th at he us ed ex ces si ve fo rce ag ai ns t Fl et ch er, Offi cer Mo to n
arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in su bm it ti ng a pu ni ti ve -d am ag es in st ru ct io n to th e

-2 0-jury. The di st ric t co ur t reject ed th es e sa m e arg um en ts in th e of fic ers ’ m ot io n to al te r

or am en d t he jud gm en t p ur su an t t o F ed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro ced ur e 5 9( e).

“ W e acco rd a di st ric t co ur t br oa d di sc ret io n in de te rm in in g whe th er to gr an t a

m ot io n to al te r or am en d ju d g men t , a nd we wil l no t rev ers e ab se nt a cl ear ab us e of
di sc ret io n.” Bur ckh ar d v. BNS F Ry. Co

. , 83 7 F.3 d 84 8, 85 7 ( 8 t h C ir. 20 16 ) (p er

cu ria m ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

, reh ’g de ni ed (Oct . 19 , 20 16 ).

If a pl ai nt iff ’s un de rlyin g cl ai m fai ls

, th en a pl ai nt iff ’s cl ai m “ fo r p u ni ti ve da m ag es ne ces sa ril y fai l[s ]. ” Sc ha ff er by Sc ha

ff er v. A.O. Sm i t h H

a r ves to re Pro d.,
In c ., 74 F.3 d 72 2, 73 1 (6 th Ci r. 19 96 ). “ To es ta bl is h a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n un de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t’s rig ht to be free fro m ex ces si ve fo rce, ‘the te st is whe th er th e

am ou nt of fo rce us ed was ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le unde r the pa rt ic ula r ci rc um sta

nc es .’ ”
Li tt re ll v. Fra nk li n , 38 8 F.3 d 57 8, 58 3 (8 th Ci r

. 20 04 ) (q uo ti ng Gre in er v. Ci ty of
Ch amp li n , 27 F.3 d 13 46
, 13 54 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 )). “ The qu es ti on fo r th e jury is whe th er, jud gi ng fro m t h e p e r s p ect iv e of a reas on ab le of fic er at th e sc en e of th e arre st , th e
to ta li ty o f th e ci rcu m st an ces jus ti fie s th e us e of th e fo rce us ed .” Id

. at 5 84 (q uo ti ng Fos te r v. Met ro . Air

po rt s C omm’n , 91 4 F .2d 10 76 , 10 81 (8t h C ir. 1 99 0) ).

Here, we co nc lu de th at th e di st ri c t co ur t pr op erl y su bm it te d th e is su e of

ex ces si ve fo rce to th e jur y, a n d th e jury fo un d th at th e of fic ers , in cl ud in g Offi cer Mo to n, vi ol at ed Fl et ch er’s co n s t i t ut io na l rig ht to be free fro m ex ces si ve fo rce. Se e id

. As th e di st ric t co ur t ex pl ai ne d, “ The jury cl earl y be li ev ed [Fl et ch er’s] ve rs io n of

ev en ts wit h res pe ct to Defe nd an ts Mot on an d Mar to ran o.” Flet ch er II at 11 (em ph as is
ad de d)

. Fl et ch er te st ifi ed th at he di d no t res is t th e of fic ers or gi ve th em an y reas on to

us e fo rce.

Fi rs t, t he ev id en ce s uf

fic ie nt ly esta bl is he s th at Off ic er Mot on us ed ex ces si ve fo rce ag ai ns t F l et ch er. Fl et ch er sp eci fic al ly id en ti fie d “ Offi cers Tom li ns on , Mar to ran o, an d Mot on ” as th e of fic ers who “ st art ed ki ck in g an d pu nc hi ng an d hi tt in g

-2 1-[h im ] al l o ve r [h is ] bo dy.” Ju ry Trial Pro ceed in gs , Vol . II, at 21

. Fl et ch er des cri be d
be in g hi t wit h “ so m e ki nd of ro d

. . . [ o ]n [ h i s ] l o wer ba ck

, [h is ] le gs .” Id

. at 24

. Offi cer Mo to n was th e of fic er who hi t Fl et ch er wit h a b a t o n , a s co nf irmed in th e
po li ce re po rt, Off

ic er Mo to n’s t es ti m on y , and Offic er To m li ns on ’s tes ti m on y

. 1 1

Seco nd

, th e ev id en ce su ffi ci en tl y e s t a bl is he s th at Offi cer Mo to n cau se d
Fl et ch er’s inju rie s. Office r Mo to n hi t Fl et ch er wit h th e ba to n. Fl et ch er te st ifi ed th at
he was hi t wit h a ro d- li ke in st ru m en t on hi s “ lo wer ba ck .” I d

. a t 2 4. Dr. Ark in

te st ifi ed th at Fl et ch er ha d a “ li ne ar wou nd ” th at co ul d ha ve be en cau se d by “ a li ne ar ob ject” su ch as “ a ba to n or a r o d o f so m e so rt.” Ju ry Tria l Pro ceed in gs Tran sc rip t,
Vol

. I, at 74

. Fl et ch er’s li ne ar br ui si ng ap pe ared on hi s ba ck

, an d it “ was no te d by th e
pr of es si on al s th at were at The Ju st ic e Cen te r.” Id

. Dr. Ark in ex pl ai ne d t h a t t he
ki dn ey s are “ lo cat ed do wn in th e to rs o ne ar whe re [Fl et ch er’s] in jury was .” Id

. In

ot he r wor ds

, Dr. Ark in co nf irmed th at Fl et ch er’s ki dn ey s were lo cat ed in “ th e sa m e
ge ne ral area whe re th e li ne ar or li ne br ui si ng was .” Id

. at 74 –7 5. Dr. Ark in ’s op in io n

was th at “ th e tr au m a to [Fl et ch er’s] t or so , t o [h is ] ba ck

, . . . cau se d ki dn ey fai lu re.”
Id

. at 8 8.

Bec au se Fl et ch er’s ex ces si ve -fo rce cl ai m is su pp or te d by su ffi ci en t ev id en ce,

we ne xt ad dr es s whe th er s u f f i ci en t ev id en ce su pp or ts th e jury’ s award of pu ni ti ve da m ag es ag ai ns t Offi cer Mo to n. Se e Sc ha ff er by Sc ha

ff er , 74 F.3 d at 73 1. “ Pu ni ti ve da m ag es m ay be award ed un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 ‘w he n th e de fen da nt ’s co nd uc t is
sh own to be m ot i v a t e d b y ev il m ot iv e or in te nt , or whe n it in vo lv es reck le ss or cal lo us in di ffer en ce to th e fed eral ly pr ot ect ed rig ht s of ot he rs .’ ” Sc ha ub v. Von W al d

, 63 8 F.3 d 90 5, 92 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo ti ng Smi th v. W ad e , 46 1 U.S. 30
, 56 (1 98 3) ).

Offi cer Mo to n te st ifi ed th at he “ pu ll ed [h is ] ASP [(b at on )] ou t an d [h e] hi t 1 1 [Fl et ch er] on th e ba ck of th e le g

. ” I d. at 22 0 (em

ph as is ad de d)

. Thu s, he ad m it s to

us in g th e ba to n, bu t he co nt es ts whe re he hi t Fl et ch er wit h it

. Offi c e r Tom li ns on

co nf irmed th at “ [Offi cer] Mo to n was t h e on e who was hi tt in g [Fl et ch er] wit h th e ba to n.” Id

. at 12 3.

-2 2-The pu rp os e of pu ni ti ve da m ag es is to “ pu ni sh a de fen da nt fo r ou tra ge ou s,

in te nt io na l, or m al ic io us co nd uc t, an d de te r si m il ar e x tre m e co nd uc t in th e fu tu re.”
Id

. at 92 2– 23 (ci ta ti on s om it te d )

. “[W ]het he r a de fen da nt ’s co nd uc t was m ot iv at ed by an ev il m ot iv e or in vo lv es reck le ss i n d i f fere nc e to th e fed eral ly p ro te ct ed rig ht s of ot he rs ” “ is a qu es ti on of fact .” Id

. at 92 3 (ci ta ti on om it t e d )

. We a gr ee wit h th e di st ric t co ur t t ha t

th ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce of m al ic e, reck le ss ne ss or cal lo us in di ffer en ce to su pp or t th is ve rd ic t ba se d up on th e ex te ns iv e in juri es

su ffer ed by [Fl et ch er], as well as hi s te st im on y th at he was be at en aft er he co m pl ie d wit h th e of

fic ers an d aft er he was ha nd cu ffed

. The jury al so rel ie d up on th e ex pe rt wit ne ss te st im on y th at [Fl et ch er’s] in juri es were

cau se d b y t he act io ns of [Offi cers ] Mot on an d Mar to ran o. Bas ed up on

a l l of th e fo reg oi ng , th e jury ha d a reas on ab le ba si s fo r award in g pu ni ti ve da m ag es to [Fl et ch er].

Flet ch er II at 1 1– 12

.

C. Ded

uc ti ng Se tt le men t Amo un t
Fi na ll y , Offi cers Mar to ran o an d Mo to n arg ue th at th e di st ric t cou rt neg le ct ed

to de du ct fro m th e jud gm en t am ou nt th e su m s th at Fl et ch er rece iv ed fro m th e pr et ria l

se tt le m en ts wit h o th er d efen da nt s.

The reco rd sh ows th at a week pr io r to tri al

, on Ju ly 29
, 20 16
, Fl et ch er’s co un se l

no ti fie d th e of

fic ers ’ co un se l th at “ Perr y C o u n ty pa id

. . . to se tt le th e cas e an d th e Co riz on Defen da nt s pa id

. . . to se tt le th e cas e. It is ou r un de rs ta nd in g th at th es e

nu m be rs an d se tt le m en ts are co nf id en ti al an d are pr ot ect ed fro m di sc lo su re in writ in g

or ora ll y to ot he r pa rti es .” Add . at A0 22

. At n o t im e pr io r to tri al or d ur in g t ria l d id
th e of fic ers br in g th es e se tt le m en ts or th e is su e o f o f f se t to th e di st ric t co ur t’s

at te nt io n. Onl y aft er tri al di d th e of fic ers as k to red uc e an y act u a l d a mag e s by th e

-2 3-se tt le m en t am ou nt s vi a a Ru le 59 (e) m ot io n to a lt er or am en d th e jud gm en t. Tha t

m ot io n p ro vi de d, i n re le va nt pa rt:

Pu rs ua nt to a se tt le m en t wit h Co riz on , In c. an d ot he r fo rm er de fen da nt s in th is cas e, Pl ai nt iff ha s re cei ve d p ay m en t o f su bs ta nt ia l s um s to ward hi s act ua l da m ag es

. B y ag reem en t be twee n co un se l, th e pa rti es ha ve ke pt th e se tt l e m en t am ou nt s co nf id en ti al

, an d, wit h th e Co ur t’s
pe rm is si on , a m em or an du m wil l be file d u nd er s eal ad vi si ng th e Co ur t of th e se tt le m en t am ou nt by w hi ch th e Ju dg m en t s ho ul d b e red uc ed

.

W HEREFORE, Offi cer Jo hn Mo to n an d Offi cer Nich ol as Mar to ran o each pr ay s th at th e Co ur t am en d th e Ju dg m en t by su bt ract in g fro m t he Ju dg m en t th e am ou nt s th at Pl ai nt iff ha s rece iv ed by way of

se tt le m en ts an d th at th e Co ur t al so el im in at e an d/ or red uc e on e or bo th of th e award s of pu ni ti ve da m ag es th at th e jur y award ed in th ei r

ve rd ic ts

.

Mo ti on to Alt e r o r Am en d th e Ju dg m en ts at 1– 2, Flet ch er v. To mli ns on , No.
4: 14 -cv -0 09 99 -RLW (E. D. Mo. Se pt . 7, 2 01 6) , ECF No. 2 05

.

In th ei r m em or an du m in su pp or t of th ei r Ru le 59 (e) m ot io n, th e of fic ers di d no t

m en ti on th ei r of

fs et arg um en t. In it s m em or an du m an d or de r, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t
ad dr es s t hi s as pe ct of t he off ic ers ’ Ru le 59 (e) m ot io n.

Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l P r o c ed ur e 59 (e) was ad op te d to cl ari fy a di st ric t co ur t’s po wer to co rrec t it s o w n m is ta ke s in th e ti m e pe rio d i mm ed ia te ly fo ll owi ng en try of jud gm en t. Ru le 59 (e) m ot io ns se r v e a li m it ed fu nc ti on of co rrec ti ng “ ‘m an i f e s t e r ro rs of la w or fact or to
pr e s en t ne wly di sc ov ered ev id en ce.’” Su ch m ot io ns can no t be us ed to in tro du ce ne w ev id en ce, te nd er ne w l e g a l th eo rie s, or rai se arg um en ts whi ch co ul d ha ve be en of fere d or r a is ed pr io r to en try of jud gm en t. A

cas e in whi c h a t i mely Ru le 59 (e) m ot io n ha s be en fil ed la ck s fin al it y be cau se th e m o t i on to ll s th e ti m e li m it at io n fo r ap pe al in or de r to

-2 4-pr ov id e th e tri al co ur t wit h juri sd ic ti on to res ol ve th e m ot io n. Thi s

“ to ll in g p ro ces s” en co ur ag es “ bo th co rrec tn es s an d fi na li ty.”

In no va ti ve Home Hea lt h Ca re , In c. v. P.T.-O.T. Ass oc s. of th e Bla ck Hil ls

, 14 1 F.3 d
12 84 , 12 86 (8t h C ir. 1 99 8) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d)

.

Here, th e of

fic ers were us in g Ru le 59 (e) to in tro du ce a ne w le ga l arg um en t no t

pr ev io us ly ra i s e d be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t— th e le ga l arg um en t th at th e se tt le m en t

am ou nt s sh ou ld be red uc ed fro m an y act ua l da m ag es award ed

. Ru le 59 (e) can no t be

so us ed

. Se e id

. Fo r th at reas on , th e d is tri ct co ur t d id no t er r in de cl in in g to ad dr es s th e is su e, an d we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of th e of fic ers ’ Ru le 59 (e) m ot io n

on th is gro un d.

III. Co nc lu si on Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2 5-