## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t22,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES COURT OF APP EALS

TENTH C IR C U IT A L F R E D M IL T O N E V A N S , an in d iv id u a l; SOU THEA STERN O KLA HO M A FA M I LY S E RV I CE S , I NC . , a c o rp o r a t i o n ; RU S T L I NG WI NDS , I NC . , a n Ok l a h o ma c o rp o r a t i o n ; M OR NI NG ST A R M E N T A L H E A L T H SE R V I C E S, I N C . , an Okl a h o ma c o rp o r a t i o n ; DI VER SI FI ED FA M I LY SE R V I C E S, I N C . , an O kl ahoma corpor at i on; SERENI TY SPRI NG S M ENTA L HEA LTH S E RV I CE S , L . L . C. , a n Ok l a h o ma c o rp o r a t i o n ; J CH , I N C . , an O kl ahoma corpor at i on; N E A L T H R I FT , an i ndi vi dual ; N A N C Y G R A V E S- T H R I FT , an in d iv id u a l; JO H N M A JO R S , an in d iv id u a l; CY NTH I A M AJ OR S, a n i n d i v i d u a l ; CH AR LES PARK HU RST, a n i n d i v i d u a l ; M AR Y PA RK HU RST, an i ndi vi dual ; L E R O Y W H E E L E R , an i ndi vi dual ; and JO E L H O L C O M B , an in d iv id u a l, P l ai nti ffs-A pp el l ants / C ross -A pp el l ees, v. M I C H A E L FO G A R T Y , i n hi s i ndi vi dual capa ci ty , as w el l as i n hi s offi ci al capa ci t yas C hi ef Execut i ve O ffi c e rfo rt h e O k l a h o m a H e a l th C a r e A u th o r i ty; T E R R I E FR I T Z , i n heri ndi vi dual capa ci ty , as w el l as i n heroffi ci al capa ci t yas D i r ect orof B ehavi or al H eal t h fort he O kl ahoma H eal t h C ar e A uthor i ty ; and D A N A B R O W N , in h e r in d iv id u a l ca p a c ity , as w e ll as i n heroffi ci al capa ci t yas L egi s l at i ve Li ai s on for t h e Okl a h o ma Hea l t h Ca r e Auth o r i ty ; TENK I LLER BEHAVI ORAL S ERVI CES I NC. , a n Ok l a h o ma c o rp o ra tio n ; D A V E T T A M C IN T O S H , an in d iv id u a l, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees/ C ross -A pp el l ants . N o s . 0 5 -6 1 0 6 , 0 5 -6 1 0 9 , 0 5 -6 1 1 0 , 0 5 -6 1 1 2 , 05- 6122, 05- 6358, 05- 6 3 5 9 , & 05- 6361T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata, and co ll ateral estop p el. T h is co u rt gener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or der and j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. In d iv id u a l p lain tiffs in c lu d e : A lf re d M ilt o n E v a n s, Jo h n M ajo rs, C yn th ia 1 M aj or s , J oel H ol comb, N eal T hr i ft , N ancyG r aves - T hr i ft , L er oyW heel er , C har l es P ark h u rst , an d M aryP ark h u rst . C o rpo rate p lai n ti ffs inc lud e: S o u thea stern O klahom a F am i l yS ervi ces, Inc. (“SO F S ”), M orni ng S t ar M ental H eal th S ervi ces, I nc. ( “M or ni ng St ar ”) , J C H , I nc. , R us t l i ng W i nds , I nc. , Ser eni tySpr i ngs M ent al H ea lth S erv ices, L . L . C . , an d D iversified F am il yS erv ices, Inc. (“D F S ”). 2 OR DER AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e T AC HA , C hi ef Ci r cui tJ udge, Mc WI L L I A MS , Seni orC i r cui tJ udge, and LU CE RO , C i r cui tJ udge. T hi s cas e ar i s es fr om a bar e- knuckl ed pol i t i cal batt l e overs t at e fundi ng for outpat i entbehavi or al and ment al heal th s ervi ces i n O kl ahoma betw een 1998 a nd 2002. I thas r es ul t ed i n a s er i es of ca s es of unus ual pr ocedur al compl exi ty , as w el l as tw o juryverdi ct s. W e conc l ude thatt he di s tr i ctcourtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n gr ant i ng a new t r i al fol l ow i ng the fi r s tver di ct . E xer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on under 28 U . S. C . § 1291, w e R EV ER SE . I D u rin g th e p e rio d a t issu e , p lain tiffs o p e ra ted c lin ics , p re d o m in a n tlyin 1 rur al ar eas of O kl ahoma, pr ovi di ng s ervi ces t o adul t s and chi l dr en w i th m ent al a n d b e h a v io ra l d iso rd e rs. P lain tiffs re lied a lm o st e x c lu siv e lyo n M e d ica id3

fun ding t o co ver the co stof p rovi ding t hese servi ces, and thei rpr i vat e cl i ni cs w e re a m o n g m a n yp u b liclyf u n d e d fa c ili ties th a t o ffe re d su c h se rv ice s. M e d ica id fu n d ing also flo w ed to state-affil iat ed co m m u n itym en tal h ea lth ce n ters ( “ CM HCs ” ) , wh i c h a r e t yp i c a l l yp a i d mo r e th a n p r i v a t e p r o v i d e r s fo rt h e s a me services . M i chae l Fogar t y , T err i e Fr i t z, and D ana Brow n ( “defendant s ”) w er e s eni or offi ci al s of the O kl ahoma H eal t h C ar e A uthor i ty( “O H C A ”) , t he age ncychar ged w i t h admi ni s t er i ng M edi cai d funds , dur i ng the r el evantper i od. Fogar tyw as hi r ed as the O kl ahoma st at e M edi cai d di r ect ori n 1995 and w as pr om ot ed t o C hi ef E xecut i ve O ffi cerof O H C A i n Sept ember1999. Fr i t z w or ked underFogar tyas O H C A ’ s D i r ect orof B ehavi or al H eal th Ser vi ces . B r ow n al s o w or ked under F o g a rt ya s O H C A ’s le g is la tiv e lia is o n in th e s ta te C a p ito l. B yt he l at e 1990s , Fogar t y , Fr i t z, and otheroffi ci al s atO H C A fac ed su b sta n tial p re ss u re to re d u c e M e d ica id c o sts . A t th e sa m e tim e , p riv a te p r o v i d e r s o f

b e h a v i o r a l a n d me n t a l h e a l th s e r v i c e s we r e c o mp e t i n g wi th CM HCs forthe l i m i t ed budgetavai l abl e fors uch s ervi ces . Pr i vat e pr ovi der s had expa nded ra p id ly , an d b yth e y e a r 2 0 0 0 n u m b e re d so m e 1 8 0 , loc a ted a t 3 3 0 site s. M e d ica id f u n d s p a id to th e s e p ri v a te p ro v id e rs g re w f ro m $ 3 .1 m illio n in 1 9 9 4 to $ 2 2 .1 m ill io n in 1 9 9 7 . F o g a rtya n d o th e r O H C A o fficia ls v iew e d th e rise in o v e ra llO H C A over s pentt he beha vi or al heal th budgetl i ne i t em bym or e than one 2 hundr ed per centbetw een 1996 a nd 1998 4 expendi tur es w i t h al arm . T heyal s o gr ew conce rned aboutt he r el at i vel yl i m i t ed 2 over s i ghtof pr i vat e pr ovi der s , w hi ch theybel i eved c r eat ed an opportuni tyfor f r a u d , m i s m a n a g e m e n t , a n d t h e p r o v i s i o n o f s u b s t a n d a r d s e r v i c e s . A c c o r d i n g l y, O H C A to o k a n u m b e r o f ste p s to lim it th e g ro w th in M e d ica id re im b u rse m e n ts to p riv a te p ro v id e rs a n d to e n g a g e in m o re a g g re ss iv e o v e rsig h t o f th e se p riv a te fa c iliti e s . A num berof pr i vat e pr ovi der s t ook um br age w i th O H C A ’ s pol i ci es dur i ng th is p e rio d a n d c a m e to b e liev e th a t F o g a rtya n d o th e rs w a n ted to d riv e p riv a te p ro v id e rs o u t o f

b u sin e ss . A s th e ir d iss a tisfa c tio n in c re a se d , a g ro u p o f p riv a te pr ovi der s banded t ogetheri n l at e 1998 t o form t he O kl ahoma Pri vat e M ent al H ea lth P rov iders A sso ciati o n (“A sso ciati o n ”). A ll ind ividu al plaintiffs w ere m ember s of the A s s oci at i on, w hi ch l obbi ed ext ens i vel yi n the s t at e l egi s l atur e, t he G o v e rn o r’ s o ffic e , a n d e ls e w h e re in s u p p o rt o f its in te re s ts . C o n flict b e tw e e n th e A ss o c iatio n a n d th e d e fe n d a n ts first c a m e to a h e a d in 1998, w hen the A s s oci at i on s ucce s s ful l yper s uaded the G overnornott o s i gn a s et of “e m er gency ” rul es pr opos ed byO H C A . T hos e rul es w oul d have r equi r ed, among ot hert hi ngs , al l ther api s t s t o obt ai n a mast er ’ s degr ee w i thi n s i x m onths of a d o p tio n o f

th e ru les . D e fe n d a n ts s u p p o rte d th is ru le a s a w a yto e n su re q u a lity and cons i s t encyof s ervi ces , butthe A s s oci at i on per s uaded the G overnort hatt heS o m e k n o w led g e o f O H C A ’s r e im b u rse m e n t p ro c e d u re s is a p re d ica te to 3 under s t andi ng pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m s . Pr i vat e pr ovi der s and C M H C s w er e r ei m bur s ed o n th e b a sis o f

“ u n its” o f

se rv ice s p ro v id e d to in d iv id u a l p a tien ts. B e g in n in g in 1996, and i n r es pons e t o r i s i ng expendi tur es , eac h pr i vat e pr ovi derw as r equi r ed to su b m it a tre a tm e n t p lan to th e O k lah o m a F o u n d a tio n fo r M e d ica l Q u a lity (“ O F M Q ” ), an in d e p e n d e n t, no n -p ro fit fo u n d a tio n ; C M H C s w e re n o t su bjec t to pr eappr oval of tr eatm entpl ans . O FM Q ’ s pr i m aryr es pons i bi l i tyi s t o vet in d iv id u a l tr e a tm e n t p la n s u n d e r a s e t o f o bje c tiv e “ m e d ic a l n e c e s s ity” c ri te ri a . Pl ans w er e appr oved on the bas i s of an a uthor i zed numberof uni t s , eac h of w hi ch re p re se n ted a c e rta in a m o u n t o f a sp e c ific typ e o f

th e ra p yo r re h a b ili tatio n . U n its w e re n o t p ric e d u n ifo rm lya c ro ss th e ra p ies – fo r e x a m p le, th e re im b u rse m e n t ra te fora uni tof i ndi vi dual couns el i ng w as $27. 23 dur i ng the r el evantper i od as agai ns t$5. 63 fora uni tof gr oup r ehabi l i t at i on. T ot al r ei m bur s ementforeac h pat i entdepende d on t he numberand type of uni t s O FM Q appr oved ( and on w h ethe r th e p rov ider in fac t bil led a ll ap p rov ed u n it s fo r ea ch p ati en t) . 5 rul es w ou l d pu t m ost pri vate providers ou t of bu si ness. A second con fl i ctarose w hen, i n J ul y1999, O H C A i m pos ed ac r os s - the- boar d cut s i n “uni t s of s ervi ce” form ent al heal t h s ervi ces by30 per centforadul t s and by5 per centforchi l dr en. 3 Faced w i t h a s t eep dr op i n r evenue as a r es ul tof the cut s , t he A s s oci at i on p e rsu a d e d th e leg isla tu re to p a ss a $ 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 su p p lem e n tal a p p ro p ria tio n in F e b ru a ry 2 0 0 0 a n d th e n a f u rt h e r a p p ro p ri a tio n o f $ 1 .1 m illio n in M a y2 0 0 0 . W hen combi ned w i t h fede r al m at chi ng funds , t he s uppl ement al appr opr i at i on re s u lte d in a $ 5 .2 m illio n in flu x , in te n d e d to re s to re f u n d in g to p ri o r l e v e ls . A t hi r d confl i ctar os e overpr opos ed l egi s l at i on, know n as H ous e B i l l 1075, w hi ch w o u ld h a v e e q u a lize d f u n d in g a n d o v e rsig h t b e tw e e n C M H C s a n d p riv a te pr ovi der s . T he A s s oci at i on uns ucce s s ful l ys upport ed the bi l l as a means of “l evel i ng t he pl ay i ng fi el d” betw een a l l pr ovi der s of beha vi or al and ment alT he courtgr ant ed i nj unct i ve r el i ef i n thatcas e, pr event i ng the t erm i nat i on 4 o f S O F S ’ M e d ica id c o n tra c t. W e a ffirm ed . S ee E v an s v . F o g arty , 4 4 F . A p p ’x 9 2 4 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). S e v e ra l p a rties in th e R u stlin g W in d s litig a tio n a re n o lo n g e r p a rt o f th is 5 case. V ari ou s ori ginal plai nti ffs hav e dropp ed o ut and plai nti ffs’ cl ai m s agai nst O FM Q w er e l at erdi s m i s s ed. M i t chel l , and a s ubs equent l yadded de fenda nt , J ana W ebb, w er e gr ant ed j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw ( “J M O L ”) att r i al . N ei therof t hos e or der s i s befor e us on appea l P re -c o n so lid a tio n , the E v a n s a n d R u stlin g W in d s d istric t co u rts s e p a ra tely 6 grant ed d efen dan t s’ m oti on t o d i sm i ss as t o all cl ai m s ot her than plai nti ffs’ Fi rs t (c o n tin u e d ...) 6 se rv ice s; d e fe n d a n ts o p p o se d it. O n F e b ru a ry6 , 2 0 0 1 , E v a n s, S O F S , an d c e rta in S O F S p a tien ts filed su it u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a g a in st th e d e fe n d a n ts, L yn n M itch e ll, O H C A S tate M e d ic a id D ir e c to r, a n d m e m b e rs o f th e O H C A B o a rd in th e iro ffic ia l c a p a c itie s . T hats ui tal l eged unl aw ful t erm i nat i on of SO FS’ M edi cai d contr act , unl aw ful den i al of requ est s for r ei m bu rs em ent, and F i rs tA m end m ent r et al i at i on . T ho se pl ai nt i ffs s oughti nj unct i ve r el i ef, compensa t or ydamages , and ce r t i fi cat i on of a cl as s act i on. O n A pr i l 10, 2001, R us t l i ng W i nds and the otherpl ai nt i ffs fi l ed a

4 s i mi l a r§ 1 9 8 3 a c t i o n a g a i n s tt h e d e fe n d a n t s , M i t c h e l l , me mb e r s o f t h e OHCA B oar d i n t hei roffi ci al capa ci t i es , and O FM Q . T he di s tr i ctcourtcons ol i dat ed 5 t hos e ac t i ons on M ay15, 2002. Pl ai nt i ffs fi l ed a thi r d amended compl ai nton J une 25, 2002. A l l plai nti ffs w ent t o tr i al on A pri l 14 , 20 03 , sol el yon t heir§ 1 98 3 F i rs t A m endmentr et al i at i on cl ai m . O vert he cour s e of the tr i al , pl ai nt i ffs pr es ent ed 6( . . . cont i nued) 6 Ame n d me n tr e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m. 7 evi dence i n s uppor tof s ever al al l eged pa t t erns of r et al i at i on, eac h of w hi ch, they argued , sufficed t o p rove t heircl ai m againstal l three defen dan t s. P l ai nti ffs fi rs t t es t i fi ed thatdefe ndant s , par t i cul ar l yFogar tyand B r ow n, s poke t o pl ai nt i ffs on num er ous occa s i ons i n rude, t hr eat eni ng, and demeani ng t erm s . Second, they s t at ed thatdefe ndant s s i ngl ed outs om e of the pl ai nt i ffs for“r et al i at or y ” audi t s by t h e S u r v e i l l a n c e Ut i l i z a t i o n Re v i e w S u b s y s t e m ( “ S UR S ” ) u n i twi th i n OHC A, w h ic h w a s re s p o n s ib le fo r a u d itin g M e d ic a id re c ip ie n ts th ro u g h o u t th e s ta te . T h ird , p lain tiffs a lleg e d th a t d e fe n d a n ts d ire c ted O F M Q to re d u c e th e ir r ei m bur s ementr at es byr ej ect i ng r eques t s forhi gherval ue uni t s , and further di r ect ed O FM Q t o i m pos e gr eat eradmi ni s tr at i ve bur dens on them. Four th, pl ai nt i ffs cl ai m ed thatdefe ndant s pr event ed them from r ece i vi ng thei rs har e of th e s u p p le m e n ta l a p p ro p ri a tio n s a p p ro v e d b yth e O k la h o m a le g is la tu re in 2 0 0 0 . T heypr ovi ded evi dence s how i ng thatnon- pol i t i cal l yact i ve pr ovi der s r ece i ved, on aver age, hi gherr ei m bur s ementr at es peruni tof s ervi ce. T h e ju ryre tu rn e d a v e rd ict in fa v o r o f a ll p lain tiffs a n d a g a in st a ll defe ndant s i n t he amountof $33, 095, 000, and r eturned a s ubs equentpuni t i ve damages ver di cti n t he amountof $1, 350, 000. O f the compens at orydamages , $24 m i l l i on w as aw ar ded t o t he var i ous corpor at e pl ai nt i ffs , and the r emai nderw as aw ard ed to the v ariou s ind ividu al plaintiffs. A ll co m p en sato ryd am ag es w ereD efen dan t s m ov ed fo r J M O L un der R ule 50(a) att he close of plai nti ffs’ 7 cas e. A l t hough t he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed thos e mot i ons as t o Fr i t z, Fogar ty , and B r ow n att hatt i m e, t her e i s s om e ambi gui tyi n the r ecor d as t o w hetheri tal l ow ed s uppl ement al br i efi ng on t hos e mot i ons pos t - tr i al , orcons i der ed the pos t - ver di ct m o ti o n s so lel yu n d er R u le 50 (b). 8 al l ocat ed betw een de fenda nt s acc or di ng t o the s ame r at i o – 60 per centfr om Fogar t y , 30 per centfr om Fr i t z, and 10 per centfr om B r ow n. Puni t i ve damages w er e aw ar ded i n t he amountof $50, 000 foreac h i ndi vi dual pl ai nt i ff a gai ns teac h defe ndant . Fol l ow i ng t he ver di ct , the courtcons i der ed defendant s ’ m ot i ons for J M O L under Fed. R . C i v. P. 50( b) . O n J ul y9, 2003, i tent er ed an or derdeny i ng 7 J M O L t o Fogar t yand Fr i t z as t o al l pl ai nt i ffs , and gr ant i ng J M O L t o B r ow n, but o n ly as to th e c o rp o ra te p la in tiffs a n d H o lc o m b . In th e sa m e o rde r, the c o u rt d e n i e d p l a i n t i ffs ’ r e q u e s tfo ri nj u n c t i v e r e l i e f a g a i n s tme mb e r s o f

t h e OHCA B o a rd o f

D ire c to rs. T h a t d e n ial is n o t b e fo re u s o n a p p e a l. D e fe n d a n ts th e n file d re n e w e d m o tio n s fo r J M O L a n d , in th e a lte rn a tiv e , a new tri al or r em i t t i tur. O n A ug ust25 , 20 03 , t he d i stri ctcou rtgrant ed d efen dan t s’ m ot i on fora new t r i al , vaca t i ng j udgm enti n the fi r s tt r i al [her ei naft er“new t r i al or der ”] . T he new t r i al or ders peci fi es t w o pr i m aryj us t i fi cat i ons forvaca t i ng t he j udgm ent : ( 1) “[T] he evi dence t endi ng t o s how r et al i at i on agai ns tpl ai nt i ffs by anyof the defendant s w as extr aor di nar i l yt hi n”; and ( 2) T her e w as no pr oper e v id e n tia ry b a s is fo r e ith e r t h e a m o u n t o r a llo c a tio n o f th e ju ry’s d a m a g e s a w a rd s . E v a n s v . F o g a rt y , N o . C IV -0 1 -0 2 5 2 -H E , s lip o p . a t 3 (W .D . O k la . A u g . 2 5 , 2 0 0 3 ).9

W i t h r egar d t o t he fi r s tgr ound, t he courts t at ed: [M ] uch of the evi dence offe r ed t o es t abl i s h r et al i at oryact i vi tyby defe ndant s Fogar t y , Fr i t z and Brow n bor der ed on pur e s pecul at i on and, i n s om e i ns t ance s , w as bas ed on l i t t l e more than pr oof thatthe p a rt ic u la r d e fe n d a n t w a s a s u p e rv is o r o f s o m e a c tiv ity a t O H C A . . . . W h ile th e e v id e n c e h e re w a s s u fficie n t to ra ise a ju ryq u e stio n a s to t he pot ent i al l i abi l i t yof thes e defendant s , thatevi dence w as farfr om c o m p e llin g . I d. W i t h r egar d t o t he s econd gr ound, the courts t at ed: “[E] ach pl ai nt ff ha d t he bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng notonl yt hatpl ai nt i ff’ s ent i t l ementt o r el i ef butal s o the a m o u n t o f

d a m a g e s th a t p lain tiff h a d su ffe re d . H e re , p lain tiffs m a d e n o e ffo rt to quant i fythe ec onom i c l os s es of ea ch corpor at e pl ai nt i ff. ” I d. at4. I tfur ther s t at ed thatw i t h r es pectt o t he corpor at e pl ai nt i ffs , “[t ] he appr opr i at e meas ur e of damages i n t hi s cas e w as t he l os tpr ofi t s – notl os tgr os s r evenue s – of the p l a i n t i ffs d u e t o d e fe n d a n t s ’ a l l e g e d r e t a l i a t o ry a c t i o n s . . . . P l a i n t i ffs ’ ‘ d i s p a r i t y’ evi dence , t o t he ext entt hati tpr oved anythi ng, s how ed the l os s i n gr os s r evenue s t he pl ai nt i ffs ar guabl yhad fr om t he al l eged di ffe r ent i al t r eatm ent . ” I d. at5. A s econd tr i al w as hel d fr om Sept ember15- 23, 2004. A l though the evi dence offe r ed byt he part i es att he s econd tr i al var i ed s om ew hatfr om t hat o ffere d at th e fir st, p lai n ti ffs all eg ed the s am e p att ern s o f re tal iat o ryb eh av ior. D e fe n d a n ts filed a m o tio n fo r su m m a ryju d g m e n t b a se d o n q u a lifie d im m u n ityin advanc e of the s econd tr i al , and r eas s er t ed thatdefe ns e i n s ubs equentm ot i ons forD e fe n d a n ts fa iled to ra ise a n a ffirm a tiv e d e fe n se o f q u a lifie d im m u n ityin 8 t he Fi nal Pr etr i al R epor tbefor e the fi r s tt r i al , ort hei rm ot i ons forJ M O L befor e or aft erthe fi r s tt r i al . B r ow n al one r ai s ed the defens e of qua l i fi ed i m m uni tyi n her p o s t - t r i a l mot i o n fo rJ M OL. 10 J M O L . T he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed thatm ot i on i n an or derdat ed D ece m ber3,

8 2 0 0 3 , sta tin g : T hi s cas e has al r eadygone t o tr i al once. T he pr etr i al or derent er ed i n the ca s e di d notpr es erve oras s er tt he defens e of qua l i fi ed i m m uni t y . W hi l e a s econd tr i al need notnece s s ar i l yi nvol ve the s a m e w itn e s s e s a n d p ro o f, th e C o u rt c o n c lu d e s it is in a p p ro p ri a te . . . t o perm i tdefe ndant s t o r ai s e new and di ffe r entl egal i s s ues or d e fe n s e s n o t a t is s u e in th e fir s t tr ia l. E v a n s v . F o g a rty , N o . C IV -0 1 -0 2 5 2 -H E (W .D . O k la. D e c . 3 , 2 0 0 3 ). D e fe n d a n ts a p p e a le d f

ro m th is o rd e r, a n d w e d is m is s e d th e ira p p e a l fo r l a c k o f ju ri s d ic tio n . S e e E v a n s v . F o g a r t y, 1 2 3 F . A p p ’ x 8 6 3 ( 1 0 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) . A d d i t i o n a l l y, defe ndant s uns ucce s s ful l yobj ect ed, i n advanc e of the s econd tr i al , t o the tes tim o n yo f

p lain tiffs’ e x p e rt w itn e ss D a le M c D a n iel. T hi s w as i n contr as tt o t he fi r s ttr i al , atw hi ch M cD ani el t es t i fi ed l ar gel yw i thoutobj ect i on. A tt he close of t he seco nd tri al , t he juryfou nd for al l plai nti ffs against Fogar t yi n t he amountof $1, 020, 000 fort he i ndi vi dual pl ai nt i ffs and $14, 295, 000 fo r th e c o rp o ra te p lain tiffs. A s to F ritz, th e ju ryfo u n d fo r h e r a g a in st a ll pl ai nt i ffs exce ptH ol comb and hi s company , J C H , r eturni ng ver di ct s i n thei rfavor for$250, 000 and $325, 000 r es pect i vel y . A s t o B r ow n, t he j uryfound aga i ns ther as t o onl yt w o pl ai nt i ffs , N eal and N ancyT hr i ft , r etur ni ng ver di ct s fort hem of11

$ 2 5 , 0 0 0 ea ch . A fter a s ec o n d b ifu rca ted p u n it ive d am ag es p roc ee d ing , the ju ry aw ard ed a total of

$ 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 in p u n it ive d am ag es to the c o rpo rate p rov iders a g a in st F o g a rty , $ 7 5 0 0 to JC H a g a in st F ritz, a n d $ 5 0 0 to e a c h o f th e T h rif

ts a g a in s t B ro w n . Fol l ow i ng t he ver di ct , defe ndant s r enew ed thei rm ot i ons forJ M O L , w hi ch t he di s t r i ctcour tgr ant ed i n par tand deni ed i n parton February23, 2005. E vans v . F o g arty , N o . C IV -01 -02 5 2 -H E (W . D . O k la. F eb . 2 3 , 2 0 0 5 ). I n i t s or der , t he c o u rt re a ffirm e d m a n yo f th e d o u b ts it ex p re ss e d in th e n e w trial o rd e r a n d its or dergr ant i ng par t i al J M O L fol l ow i ng the fi r s tt r i al . A theart , t he courtfound pl ai nt i ffs ’ evi dence t o be al m os tent i r el yconj ectur al as t o caus at i on: T he C our tconcl udes t hatm er el ys how i ng thata defendanti s t he hea d of an a gencyoran age ncypr ogr am ar ea, comm i t t ed unr el at ed “ba d act s , ” and ha d s er i ous di s put es ordi s agr eement s w i th a pl ai nt i ff, combi ned w i t h evi dence t hatt he pl ai nt i ff w as t r eat ed unfa vor abl yby th e a g e n c yo r e x p e rie n c e d so m e so rt o f u n d e sira b le a g e n c ya c tio n , is notenough, i n and of i t s el f, t o s uppor tan i nfer ence t hatt he defe ndantcaus ed w hat everharm t he pl ai nt i ff obj ect s t o. I d . a t8 . M o r e s p e c i fi c a l l y, t h e c o u r td e t e r m i n e d t h a tt h e p l a i n t i ffs ’ m o s tf u l l yd e v e lo p e d th e o ryo f

re talia tio n , tha t d e fe n d a n ts d ire c ted O F M Q to d isc rim in a te ag ains t th em b yrejecti n g h igh -rate un it s, fo u n d n o su p p o rtin the rec o rd: “T h ere w as not. . . evi dence fr om w hi ch a j ur ycoul d have r eas onabl yconcl uded that t hes e ci r cumst ance s w er e due t o Fogar tyt ry i ng t o s i ngl e outand puni s h the pl ai nt i ffs – t hes e fa ct s and ci r cumst ance s appl i ed t o al l pr i vat e pr ovi der s . ” I d. at 1 0 . T h e o rd e r id e n tifie s a t lea st fo u r d isc re te b re a k s in th e c a u sa l ch a in w ith12

r es pectt o t he r ei m bur s ementdi s par i tyevi dence : ( 1) a l ack of evi dence s ugges t i ng Fogar t y , Fr i t z, orB r ow n had contr ol overO FM Q appr oval s ; ( 2) a l ack of co m parat i ve d at a i nd i cat i ng t he all eged dis pari tyoccu rr ed af t er pl ai nti ffs’ p o lit ica l ac tiv iti e s b e g a n ; (3 ) w id e v a ria tio n in th e a v e ra g e m o n th ly r ei m bur s ementr at e betw een pl ai nt i ffs and otherpr ovi der s ( and al s o among pl ai nt i ff pr ovi der s ) ; and ( 4) a l ack of evi dence thatpl ai nt i ffs pr ovi ded s i m i l ar services t o o t her pri vate pr ov i ders orC M H C s. O n t hes e bas es , t he courtgr ant ed J M O L t o Fogar tyw i th r es pectt o al l t he c o rp o ra te p ro v id e rs a n d tw o in d iv id u a l p la in tiffs – M a ry P a rk h u rs t a n d H o lc o m b . R ec o g n izi n g that § 1 9 8 3 li ab il ityd o es n o t exten d to d efam ati o n , the c o u rt nonethel es s uphel d t he j ur y ’ s ver di ctagai ns tFogartyi n favorof the other i n d i v i d u a l p l a i n t i ffs o n th e b a s i s o f a “ d e fa m a t i o n p l u s t h r e a t ” t h e o ry o f l i a b i l i t y. I thel d that“defamat or yl anguage acc om pani ed bys om e ‘ thr eat , coer ci on, or i nt i m i dat i on i nt i m at i ng t hatpuni s hm ent , s anct i on oradver s e r egul at oryact i on w i l l i m m i nent l yfol l ow , ’ m ays uppor ta Fi r s tA m endmentr et al i at i on cl ai m . ” I d. a t 1 2 (q u o tin g S u a re z C o rp . In d u s . v . M c G ra w , 2 0 2 F .3 d 6 7 6 , 6 8 7 (4 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). “H er e, al t hough a cl os e ques t i on, t he C our tconcl udes t her e w as evi dence fr om w hich the jurycou l d reasonab l yhav e fou nd t hat Fog artydefa m ed an d at l east im p licitlyth re a ten e d th o se p lain tiffs p re se n t in th e m e e tin g s [ a t th e sta te C api t ol ] . ” I d. at13. I tgr ant ed J M O L t o Fr i t z as t o al l pl ai nt i ffs , fi ndi ng thatt he s a me c a us a l br e a ks w i t h r e s pe c tt o the di s pa r i tye vi de nc e a nd c on tr ol of O FM Q13

t h a ta p p l i e d t o F o g a r t ye x t e n d e d t o F r i t z . I d . a t3 1 - 3 3 . F i n a l l y , i td e n i e d J M OL t o B r ow n bas ed on the s ame “defa m at i on pl us thr eat ” theoryof l i abi l i tyi tr el i ed o n to u p h o ld so m e o f th e ind ividu al da m ag es a w ard s ag ains t Fo g arty . “[ T ]he jury c o u ld h a v e c o n c lu d e d th a t B ro w n m a d e d e fa m a to ryc o m m e n ts a b o u t th e T h rif ts to leg isla to rs o r o th e rs, u n d e r c irc u m sta n c e s im p ly in g th a t so m e p u n ish m e n t, s anct i on oradver s e r egul at or yact i on w oul d i m m i nent l yfol l ow . ” I d. at35. O n O ct ob er 4, 20 05 , t he d i stri ctcou rtenter ed an order grant i ng plai nti ffs a re d u c e d a tto rn e y s’ fe e a w a rd p u rsu a n t to 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 8 (b ). F e e s a n d c o sts w er e aw ar ded t o t he pl ai nt i ffs i n t he amountof $356, 749. 40 agai ns tFogar tyand $60, 500 agai ns tB r ow n. Pl ai nt i ffs now appea l fr om t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s February23, 2005 or der gr ant i ng i n par tand deny i ng i n partdefe ndant s ’ m ot i ons forJ M O L . T heys eek r ei ns t at ementof the fi r s tj ur yver di cti n ful l or , i n the al t ernat i ve, r ei ns t at ementof t he s econd j ur yver di cti n ful l . D efe ndant s Fogartyand B r ow n cr os s - appea l fr om t he s ame or der , s eeki ng J M O L as t o al l pl ai nt i ffs . Pl ai nt i ffs al s o appea l fr om t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s O ct ober4, 2005 or dergr ant i ng a r educe d fee aw ar d. I n thei rfee a p p e a l, th e yse e k re im b u rse m e n t fo r a ll fe e s a n d c o sts a ss o c iate d w ith th is l i t i gat i on. D efe ndant s cr os s - appea l , ar gui ng thatt he fe e aw ar d s houl d be r educe d fur t her , orel i m i nat ed ent i r el y . W e have cons ol i dat ed the mer i t s appea l s ( docket num ber s 05- 6106, 05- 6109, 05- 6110, 05- 6112, 05- 6122, and 05- 6130) and fe e appea l s ( docketnum ber s 05- 6358, 05- 6359, and 05- 6361) forpurpos es of14

di s pos i t i on. II Pl ai nt i ffs appea l fr om t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s gr antof part i al J M O L fol l ow i ng t he seco nd t ri al , w hich w e revi ew de n ov o, view i ng al l evidence in the li gh tm ost fa v o ra b le to th e p lain tiffs. H e rre ra v . L u f k in In d u s., In c ., 4 7 4 F .3 d 6 7 5 , 6 8 5 (1 0 th C i r . 2007) . U nderFed. R . C i v. P. 50 the di s tr i ctcourtm aygr antJ M O L i f “a r eas onabl e j ur yw oul d nothave a l egal l ys uffi ci entevi dent i arybas i s t o fi nd for t he part yon t hati s s ue. ” D efe ndant s Fogar tyand B r ow n cr os s - appea l fr om t he s ame or der , ar gui ng t hatJ M O L s houl d be gr ant ed as t o al l pl ai nt i ffs . “W e r evi ew de novo a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of a mot i on forj udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” M ar s hal l v. C ol um bi a Lea R eg’ l H os p. , 474 F. 3d 733, 738 ( 10th C i r . 2007) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . “I n or dert o r ever s e the tr i al court ’ s deci s i on on a mot i on for d ire c ted v e rd ict, w e m u st fin d th e e v id e n c e p o in ts b u t o n e w a ya n d is s u sc e p tib le t o no r eas onabl e i nfer ence s s uppor t i ng the partyoppos i ng the mot i on. ” M as on v. T exac o, I nc. , 948 F. 2d 1546, 1554 ( 10th C i r . 1991) ( quot at i on and al t er at i on o m itted). H ow ever, t he u nu sual proced ural po sture of thi s case r equ i res t hat w e fi rs t as s es s pl ai nt i ffs ’ ar gum entt hatthe di s tr i ctcourtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n gr ant i ng defe ndant s a new t r i al underFed. R . C i v. P. 59. T hus far , pl ai nt i ffs have notbeen h e a rd o n th is a rg u m e n t, as a n o rd e r g ra n tin g a n e w trial u n d e r R u le 5 9 is i nt er l ocut or y , and thus i s nota fi nal deci s i on fr om w hi ch an appeal m aybe t aken15

under28 U . S. C . § 1291. See A l l i ed C hem. C orp. v. D ai fl on, I nc. , 449 U . S. 33, 34 (1980 ). W e revi ew a t ri al j ud ge’s deci si on on a m oti on un der R ule 59 fo r abuse of di s cr et i on. See G as per i ni v. C tr . forH um ani t i es , I nc. , 518 U . S. 415, 433- 35 (19 9 6 ) (ho lding ap p ell ate rev iew fo r ab u se o f d iscreti o n d o es n o t violate p arty ’s Seventh A m endmentr i ghtt o a tr i al byj ur y ) ; Fr ank v. B l oom , 634 F. 2d 1245, 1254- 55 ( 10t h C i r . 1980) . Y etw hen appe l l at e r evi ew i s of a di s tr i ctcour t ’ s gr ant of a ne w t r i al , w e s ubj ectt hatdeci s i on t o m or e s tr i ngents crut i nyi n or derthatt he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s j udgm entnotbe s ubs t i tut ed forthe j ury ’ s . See H ol m es v. C i tyof M as s i l l on, 78 F. 3d 1041, 1047 ( 6th C i r . 1996) ; H ut chi ns on v. Stuckey , 952 F. 2d 1418, 1420- 21 ( D . C . C i r . 1992) ; L i nd v. Schenl eyI ndus . , I nc. , 278 F. 2d 79, 90 ( 3d C i r . 1960) . “Thi s i s par t i cul ar l ytrue w hen the mot i on i s gr ant ed on the gr ound t hatt he ver di cti s agai ns tthe w ei ghtof the evi dence . ” H ut chi ns on, 952 F .2 d a t 1 4 2 1 . In th o se in sta n c e s, “ [ s]u c h a c lo se sc ru tin yis re q u ire d in o rd e r to p rotec t th e li ti g an ts’ ri g h t t o jurytr ial . ” Id . (qu o tat ion o m itted). III C entr al t o t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on t o gr anta new t r i al w as i t s vi ew t hat “the evi dence t endi ng t o s how r et al i at i on agai ns tt he pl ai nt i ffs byanyof the d e fe n d a n t s was e x t r a o r d i n a r i l yt h i n . ” Ev a n s v . Fo g a r ty , No. CI V- 0 1 - 0 2 5 2 - HE, s l i p op. at3 ( W . D . O kl a. A ug. 25, 2003) . A ccor di ngl y , ourr evi ew of the new t r i al or dernece s s i t at es t hatw e cons i dert he s uffi ci encyof pl ai nt i ffs ’ evi dence at th e first tria l as to e a c h d e fe n d a n t.G o v ern m en t officials sue d fo r F ir st A m en d m en t r etali ati o n typ icall yasse rt 9 t he affi rm at i ve d efen se of q uali fi ed im m un i ty , i n w hich case pl ai nti ffs m ustal so p ro v e th a t “th e leg a l n o rm s a lleg e d lyv io late d b yth e d e fe n d a n t w e re c lea rly e s t a bl i s he d a tt he t i me of t he c ha l l e ng e d a c t i on s . ” M i t c he l l v. For s yth, 47 2 U. S. 511, 528 ( 1985) ; s ee a l s o Per ez, 421 F. 3d at1131. I n thi s cas e, defe ndant s fai l ed t o pr oper l yr ai s e a qua l i fi ed i m m uni tydefe ns e i n advanc e of the fi r s tt r i al . Pr ec o n so lid a tio n , d e fe n d a n ts m o v e d u n d e r F e d . R . C iv . P . 1 2 (b )(6 ) to d ism iss b o th t he R ust l i ng W i nd s and E van s l aw sui t s, rai si ng qu al i fi ed im m un i tyi n those m oti on s. T h o se m o ti o n s w ere d en ied, an d d efen d an ts th en fa il ed to as sert qual i fi ed i m m uni t yi n t hei rm ot i ons fors um m aryj udgm ent , t he pr etr i al or der , or in th e iro ra l m o tio n s fo r J M O L a t th e c lo s e o f th e p la in tiffs ’ c a s e . U nd er these ci r cumst ance s , w e dee m t he defens e w ai ved. “[C]l ai m s , i s s ues , defe ns es , or t heor i es of damages noti ncl uded i n the pr etr i al or derar e w ai ved eve n i f they ap p ea red in the [p lead ing s]. ” W il so n v . M u ck ala, 30 3 F . 3 d 1 2 0 7 , 1 2 1 5 (10 th C ir . 2002) ; cf. M aes t as v. L uj an, 351 F. 3d 1001, 1010 ( 10th C i r . 2003) ( hol di ng defe ns e notw ai ved w hen defendant“r ai s ed qual i fi ed i m m uni tyas an affi r m at i ve defe ns e i n hi s A ns w er , r efe r ence d the defens e i n the Pr etr i al O r der , and gave tes tim o n yo n th e m a tter a t trial” ). A lth o u g h th e d e fe n se o f q u a lifie d im m u n ity pr ovi des publ i c off

i ci al s i m por t antpr ot ect i on fr om bas el es s and har as s i ng l aw s ui t s , i ti s nota par achut e t o be depl oy ed onl yw hen the pl ane ha s run outof fuel . D efe ndant s m us tdi l i gent l yr ai s e the defens e dur i ng pr etr i al pr ocee di ngs and e n su re it i s in c lu d e d in th e p re trial o rd e r. “T o fin d o th e rw ise is to in v ite s tra teg ic us e of the defens e bydefe ndant s w ho s t and t o benef i tfr om del ay . ” G uzmanR iv e ra v . R iv e ra -C ru z , 9 8 F .3 d 6 6 4 , 6 6 8 (1 st C ir. 1 9 9 6 ). B e c a u se w e re in sta te por t i ons of the fi r s tj ur yver di ct , w e nee d notaddr es s defe ndant s ’ ar gum entt hat t he di s t r i ctcour tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng thei rr eques tt o as s er tqual i fi ed im m u n ity a t th e s e c o n d tr ia l. 16 Pl ai nt i ffs br oughts ui tagai ns tdefe ndant s under§ 1983, al l egi ng t hey s u ffe re d re ta lia tio n re la te d to th e ire x e rc is e o f F ir s t A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts . “A l t hough r et al i at i on i s notexpr es s l ydi s cus s ed i n the Fi r s tA m endment , i tm ay be acti on able i nasm uch as gov ernm ental ret al i at i on t end s t o ch i l l ci t i zens’ exer ci s e of thei rcons t i tut i onal r i ght s . ” Per ez v. E l l i ngt on, 421 F. 3d 1128, 1131 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (c itatio n o m itt e d ). O u tsid e th e p u b lic e m p lo ym e n t co n tex t, 9W e w oul d nor m al l yeval uat e pl ai nt i ffs ’ r et al i at i on cl ai m undert he 10 Pi cker i ng/ C onni ck bal anci ng t es t , w hi ch i s appl i cabl e t o part i es w ho have a contr actual r el at i ons hi p w i t h t he governm ent . See B d. of C ountyC om m ’ r s v. U m behr , 518 U . S. 668, 673- 78 ( 1996) . I n as s es s i ng w hethera publ i c empl oy er has i m perm i s s i bl yi nfr i nged on an e m pl oy ee’ s s peec h r i ght s , w e appl yt he fol l ow i ng t es t : “( 1) w hethert he s peec h t ouches on a mat t erof publ i c conc ern, ( 2) w h ethe r th e e m p loy ee ’s i n terest i n co m m en ti n g o n m att ers o f p u b li c c o n ce rn o u tw e ig h s th e in ter e st o f th e sta te in p ro m o tin g th e e fficie n c yo f th e p u b lic s ervi ce i tper form s t hr ough i t s empl oy ees , and ( 3) w hethert he pr ot ect ed s peec h w a s a s u b s ta n tia l o r m o tiv a tin g fa c to r b e h in d th e a d v e rs e e m p lo ym e n t d e c is io n . .

. . If these t hree fact ors ar e m et , (4) t he b urden sh i ft s t o the em ploy er t o est abli sh t hati tw oul d have r eac hed the s ame deci s i on i n the abs ence of the pr ot ect ed co n d u ct. ” B u rns v . B d . o f C o u n tyC o m m ’rs, 3 3 0 F . 3 d 1 2 7 5 , 1 2 8 6 n . 7 (10 th C ir . 2003) . W e appl i ed thi s t es tw hen cons i der i ng an ea r l i erappea l fr om s om e of the p a rt ie s in th is c a s e . S e e E v a n s v . F o g a rt y , 4 4 F . A p p ’x 9 2 4 , 9 2 9 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). H o w e v e r , b e c a u s e t h e j u r i e s a tb o th t r i a l s w e r e i n s tru c t e d ( a l b e i ti m p e r m i s s i b l y, w i t h the part i es ’ cons ent ) on t he el ement s r equi r ed t o pr ove a Fi r s tA m endment re talia tio n c laim o u tsid e th e p u b lic e m p lo ym e n t co n tex t, w e a p p lyth o se e lem e n ts i n thi s cas e. 17 p lain tiffs m u st p ro v e th e fo llo w in g e lem e n ts to e sta b lish a re talia tio n c laim : ( 1) t hatt he pl ai nt i ff w as engage d i n cons t i tut i onal l ypr ot ect ed act i vi t y ; ( 2) t hatt he defendant ’ s act i ons caus ed the pl ai nt i ff t o s uffe r an i nj ur yt hatw oul d chi l l a per s on of or di naryfi r m nes s fr om co n ti n u ing to en g ag e in th at ac ti v ity ; and (3) tha t th e d efen d an t’ s adver s e ac t i on w as s ubs t ant i al l ym ot i vat ed as a r es pons e t o the p la in tiff ’s e x e rc is e o f c o n s titu tio n a lly p ro te c te d c o n d u c t. W or r el l v. H enry , 219 F. 3d 1197, 1212 ( 10th C i r . 2000) ( quot at i on and ci t at i on o m itted). 10 Par t i es do notdi s put e thatpl ai nt i ffs engage d i n pr ot ect ed Fi r s tA m endment a c t i v i t y. O urr evi ew of the evi dence fr om t he fi r s tt r i al i s t hus l i m i t ed t o w hether there w as e v iden ce o f (1 ) “a n injurythat w o u ld ch il l a pe rson o f o rdin ary fi r m nes s fr om cont i nui ng t o engage i n [pr ot ect ed] act i vi ty , ” ( 2) w hether18

defe ndant s caus ed thati nj ur y , and ( 3) w hetherdefe ndant s ’ act i ons w er e mot i vat ed bypl ai nt i ffs ’ pr ot ect ed ac t i vi t y . W orr el l , 219 F. 3d at1212. A s t o the thi r d i s s ue, retali atorym o ti v e, th e d istri ct co u rtfo u n d there w as a m p le ev iden ce o f re tal iat o ry m ot i ve i n i t s or derof J ul y9, 2003, and di d notr evi s i tthi s poi nti n the new tr i al o rd e r. S e e E v a n s v . F o g a rty , N o . C IV -0 1 -0 2 5 2 -H E , slip o p . at 5 (W .D . O k la. J u ly 9, 2003) ( “The C our thas l i t t l e di ffi cul tyi n concl udi ng ther e w as s uffi ci ent evi dence t o cr eat e a j ur yques t i on as t o r et al i at orym ot i ve. ”) . A l though d e fe n d a n ts c h a llen g e th is h o ld in g , w e a g re e th a t th e re w a s s u fficie n t ev id e n c e in th e re c o rd fo r a ju ry to fin d re ta lia to ry m o tiv e o n th e p a rt o f a ll th re e d e fe n d a n ts . W i t h r es pectt o t he ca us at i on and i nj ur yel ement s , w e mustexami ne the di s t i nct pat t erns of r et al i at or yact i vi t yal l eged bythe pl ai nt i ffs t o det erm i ne w hether pl ai nt i ffs offe r ed evi dence as t o anyone patt ern s uffi ci entfora r eas onabl e j ur or to fin d in th e irfa v o r. As we wa d e t h r o u g h t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a tth e fi r s ttr i a l , we r eemphas i ze the Seventh A m endmentpr ot ect i ons thatunderpi n ouri nqui ry , w hi ch p rov ide th at “n o fa ct tri ed b ya jury , sh all b e o therw ise re-ex am ined in an yC o u rt o f th e U n ited S tate s, th a n a c c o rd in g to th e ru les o f th e c o m m o n law .” U .S . C o n st. a m e n d . V II. “ T h u s, u n d e r th e S e v e n th A m e n d m e n t, th e c o u rt m a yn o t su b stitu te its ju d g m e n t o f

th e fa c ts fo r th a t o f

th e ju ry ; itm a yo n lyg ra n t a n e w trial if it c o n c lu d e s th a t th e ju ry ’s v e rd ict w a s s o a g a in st th e w e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e a s to b e u n su p p o rta b le.” S k in n e r v . T o tal P e tro leu m , In c ., 8 5 9 F .2 d 1 4 3 9 , 1 4 4 3 (1 0 thD at a fr om J ul yt hr ough D ece m ber2000, and February2001 w as 11 (c o n tin u e d ...) 19 C ir. 1 9 8 8 ). It is a lso w o rth yo f m e n tio n th a t p lain tiffs c a rrie d a b u rd e n to es t abl i s h t he per s onal par t i ci pat i on of ea ch defendanti n the al l eged r et al i at i on; s e c tio n 1 9 8 3 lia b ility m a yn o t b e p re d ic a te d o n a re s p o n d e a t s u p e ri o r t h e o ry. See B ut l erv. C i t yof N or m an, 992 F. 2d 1053, 1055 ( 10th C i r . 1993) ( “A s upervi s ori s notl i abl e under1983 unl es s an affi r m at i ve l i nk exi s t s betw een the c o n stitu tio n a l d e p riv a tio n a n d e ith e r th e su p e rv iso r’s p e rso n a l p a rticip a tio n , h is ex erc ise o f c o n tr o l or d ir ec ti o n , o r his fa il u re to su p erv ise. ”) (q u o tat ion o m itted). A O f the s ever al patt erns of r et al i at orybehavi oral l eged bypl ai nt i ffs att he first tria l, th e m o st th o ro u g h lyd e v e lo p e d (a n d h e a v ilyc o n tes ted ) w a s th e ir a lleg a tio n th a t d e fe n d a n ts d ire c ted O F M Q to a p p ro v e fe w e r a n d lo w e r v a lu e u n its forr ei m bur s ement , and t o i ncr eas e cos t l yadmi ni s tr at i ve bur dens . I n s uppor tof t hi s al l egat i on, pl ai nt i ffs offe r ed thei row n t es t i m ony , t he t es t i m onyof s ever al t hi r d- par t yw i t nes s es , and a s etof dat a r epr es ent i ng 25 m onths of r ei m bur s ement appr oval s foral l pr i vat e pr ovi der s and C M H C s acr os s t he s t at e. T hatdat a w as compi l ed and a nal y zed byR ogerD al e M cD ani el , a ce r t i fi ed publ i c ac count ant w h o tes tifie d a s a n e x p e rt w itn e ss a t th e first tria l. M c D a n iel a n a ly z e d m o n th ly r ei m bur s ementdat a pr ovi ded byU ni s y s C orpor at i on, O FM Q ’ s fi s cal agent , for t he mont hs J ul y1999 t hr ough J anuary2002. 11( . . . cont i nued) 11 unavai l abl e and w as notpr ovi ded. 20 F o r th o se m o n th s in c lu d e d in th e U n isy s re p o rts, th e d a ta s h o w s a ll u n its appr oved foreac h pr ovi derfunded thr ough O FM Q . M cD ani el t es t i fi ed that , on aver age, the pl ai nt i ff pr ovi der s ( and s om e pr ovi der s i ni t i al l ynamed as pl ai nt i ffs butl at erdi s m i s s ed) w er e r ei m bur s ed ata l ow err at e peruni tof s ervi ce than C M H C s and non- pl ai nt i ff pr ovi der s . A cr os s t hi s 25- m onth per i od, pl ai nt i ff p ro v id e rs w e re re im b u rse d a t an a v e ra g e ra te o f $ 8 .8 5 p e r u n it, o th e r p riv a te p r o v i d e r s we r e r e i mb u r s e d a ta n a v e r a g e r a t e o f $ 1 8 . 1 3 p e ru n i t , a n d CM HCs w er e r ei m bur s ed atan ave r age r at e of $13. 02 peruni t( adj us t ed t o $16. 93 c o n sid e rin g th e 3 0 p e rc e n t ad d iti o n a l re im b u rse m e n t p ro v id e d to C M H C s). T h is di s par i t yi n aver age, acr os s - t he- boar d r ei m bur s ementr at es w as i ntr oduced a s evi dence of r et al i at or yi nj ur yand al s o as damages evi dence w i th r es pectt o the corporat e plai nti ffs. D efen d an ts did n o t object t o M cD an iel ’s qu ali fica ti o n s to o ffer e x p ert t es t i m onyon t he U ni s y s dat a, butdi d chal l enge hi s m ethodol ogyand conc l us i ons on cr os s - exami nat i on. M cD ani el admi tt ed thathi s cal cul at i ons r epr es ent ed not hi ng m or e than a s i m pl e ave r age, nota mean orm ode, and thathe w as u n fa m ili a r w ith sta tistica l m e th o d o lo g ies . H e a lso a d m itt e d th a t th e U n isy s d a ta i ncl uded onl yt hos e uni t s forw hi ch ea ch pr ovi derw as appr oved, and s how ed not hi ng aboutt he quant i t yort ype of uni t s r eques t ed, orw hetheranyi ndi vi dualT hi s fi gur e does noti ncl ude the pr emi um pai d C M H C s t o cover 12 adm i nis t rat i ve co st s. 21 pr ovi dereven bi l l ed thos e uni t s forw hi ch i tw as appr oved. H e furtheradmi t t ed t hat , on aver age, pl ai nt i ff pr ovi der s bi l l ed s ubs t ant i al l ym or e percl i ent( $595. 01) d u ri n g that p eriod than eith er the C M H C s ($3 9 3 . 1 7 ) o r oth er p ri v ate p rov iders 12 ($3 8 4 . 5 9 ). D efe ndant s m oved forJ M O L att he cl os e of the pl ai nt i ffs ’ cas e, butdi d not r ai s e s peci fi c obj ect i ons t o t he di s par i tyevi dence att hatt i m e. A s t o Fr i t z, defe ndant s s t at ed: T he t es t i m onyoverand overand overagai n byvar i ous of the pl ai nt i ffs w as t hateveryt i m e ther e w as a budgetpr obl em att he H eal t h C ar e A ut hor i t yt hats uch thi ngs as uni t s w er e r educe d or re im b u rse m e n t ra tes w e re c u t. B u t th a t ap p lied to a ll p riv a te pr ovi der s acr os s t he boar d. T he uni tcut s appl i ed t o C M H C s and pr i vat e pr ovi der s acr os s t he boar d. So w hatt heyhave s how n i s t hat th e re w a s a b u d g e tar ym o tiv e a n d n o t a r e talia to rym o tiv e o n b e h a lf of anyof the pl ai nt i ffs [s i c] i n thi s cas e. A s to F o g artyan d B row n , d efen d an ts did n o t m en ti o n the d ispa ri tyev iden ce . In t heirm oti on for JM O L foll ow i ng t he v erdi ct , defe nd ants focu sed on plai nti ffs’ fai l ur e t o pr ove ca us at i on – i . e. , l ack of evi dence t o pr ove Fr i t z orFogar tyexert ed anycontr ol overO FM Q appr oval s – buts ai d l i t t l e aboutt he val i di tyof the d i s p a r i t y e v i d e n c e a s p r o o f o f r e t a l i a t o ry i nj u ry. I n thei rr enew ed mot i on for J M O L or , al t ernat i vel y , a new t r i al , defe ndant s di s cus s ed the di s par i tyevi dence w i t h r es pectt o l os tpr ofi tdamages , butonl ybr i efl yt ouched on w hethert heT h e c o n c e rn s a d d re ss e d in th e Ju ly9 , 2 0 0 3 o rd e r in c lu d e : (1 ) v a ria n c e in 13 r ei m bur s ementr at es dependi ng on the s ervi ce pr ovi ded, ( 2) l ack of evi dence s how i ng pl ai nt i ff pr ovi der s r eques t ed the s ame uni t s as otherpr ovi der s , ( 3) l ack of evi dence as t o uni form i t yof pat i entpopul at i ons , ( 4) l ack of evi dence t hat appr oved uni t s w er e i n fac tus ed/bi l l ed, ( 5) l ack of “compar abl e s t at i s t i cal e v id e n c e re g a rd in g th e re lativ e re im b u rse m e n t ra tes fo r th e p e rio d p rio r to pl ai nt i ffs ’ pol i t i cal act i vi t i es , ” and ( 6) evi dence t hatdi s par i t i es i n r ei m bur s ement r a t e s we r e o f

c o n c e r n t o p l a i n t i ffs e v e n b e fo r e 1 9 9 9 . E v a n s v . F o g a r ty , No . CI V01- 0252- H E , s l i p op. at7 ( W . D . O kl a. J ul y9, 2003) 22 d i s p a r i t y e v i d e n c e c o u l d g o t o w a r d r e t a l i a t o ry i nj u ry. N onethel es s , i n i t s J ul y9, 2003 or derdeny i ng J M O L i n part , t he di s tr i ct c o u rt a d d re ss e d se v e ra l w e a k n e ss e s o f th e d isp a ritye v id e n c e in su b sta n tially g re a ter d e tail th a n fo u n d in th e d e fe n d a n ts’ m o tio n s fo r JM O L . It th e n e x p licitly re fe re n c e d th a t d isc u ss io n in th e n e w trial o rd e r, fin d in g th a t th e d isp a rity 13 e v id e n c e w a s in su fficie n t to su p p o rt a F irst A m e n d m e n t re talia tio n c laim a s to anyof the defendant s . T he courtconcl uded thatt he evi dence t endi ng t o s how liab ili tyw a s “ e x tra o rd in a rilyth in .” E v a n s v . F o g a rty , N o . C IV -0 1 -0 2 5 2 -H E , slip op. at3 ( W . D . O kl a. A ug. 25, 2003) . W i th r es pectt o damages , t he courtfound th a t “[ t]h e ju ry ’s fo rm u laic a llo c a tio n o f d a m a g e s b e tw e e n e a c h o f th e d e fe n d a n ts w as al so t roubles om e. ” Id. at5. Itdeterm i ned t hat the co rporat e plai nti ffs’ damages aw ar ds w er e uns uppor t ed byt he evi dence , beca us e theyw er e bas ed on a m easure of l ostrevenu es as opp osed to l ostprofi t s. Indi vidual plai nti ffs’ damages aw ar ds , w hi ch r anged f r om $295, 000 t o $1. 5 m i l l i on, w er e dee m ed exce s s i ve.23

A l t hough, as di s cus s ed i nfr a, w e s har e the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s conce rns about th e c o rp o ra te d a m a g e s a w a rd e d a t th e first tria l, w e h o ld th a t ita b u se d its di s cr et i on i n gr ant i ng a new t r i al . T aken i n the cont extof al l otherevi dence pr oduced a tt r i al , a r eas onabl e j ur orcoul d have found bot h r et al i at or yi nj ur yand caus at i on. I n i t s di s cus s i on of thi s evi dence i n the J ul y9, 2003 and new tr i al or der s , t he di s t r i ctcour ti m pr oper l yi ntruded on the j ury ’ s pr i m aryr ol e as fa c t fi n d e ra n d s u b s t i tu t e d i t s o w n j u d g m e n tfo rth a to f th e j u ry. O u r re v iew o f

th e e v id e n c e a d m itt e d a t th e first tria l sa tisfies u s th a t a r eas onabl e j ur orcoul d have found Fogar tyand Fr i t z ca us ed O FM Q t o appr ove fe w er a n d /or l o w er v alue u n it s. R ec o g n izi n g that “[ i] n d ividu al l iabili tyu n d er § 1983 m us tbe bas ed on per s onal i nvol vementi n the al l eged c ons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on, ” Foot e v. Spi egel , 118 F. 3d 1416, 1423 ( 10th C i r . 1997) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) , t her e w as s uffi ci entevi dence of Fr i t z and Fogarty ’ s per s onal contr ol overO FM Q t o es t abl i s h caus at i on. F og artyt est i fi ed v i a dep osi t i on that “w e dir ect l ycon trol [O F M Q ] as a c o n tr a c to r” a n d “ w e w ri te th e te rm s o f th e c o n tr a c t a n d th e ya g re e to it.” C har l es P a rk h u rst, o w n e r o f

D F S , tes tifie d th a t h e sp o k e w ith F o g a rtyre g a rd in g c e rta in u n its th a t P a rk h u rst fe lt w e re u n fa irlyd e n ied b yO F M Q . A c c o rd in g to P a rk h u rst, F o g a rtya g re e d th a t th e u n its sh o u ld b e re sto re d , an d th a t h e w o u ld p e rso n a lly r e s o l v e t h e i s s u e wi t h a p h o n e c a l l t o OF M Q. W h e n a sk e d w h e th e r F o g a rty in d ic a te d th a t “ w ith a s im p le p h o n e c a ll to O F M Q h e c o u ld c o n tr o l yo u r u n its ,”24

Par khur s tr epl i ed, “Y es . T hat ’ s w hathe t ol d m e. ” I n fac t , the contr acti n pl ace betw een O H C A and O F M Q du ri ng this peri od provides for r el at i velycl ose s u p e r v i s i o n o f

t h e OF M Q a p p r o v a l p r o c e s s b yOHC A: T he part i es agr ee t o di s cus s ata mi ni m um of one w eekl ym eet i ng any problem s or concerns r el at i ng t o [p ri or aut ho ri zat i on ] s ervi ces. OFMQ a g r e e s t o p r o v i d e a h a l f t i me d a t a a n a l y s tt o a s s i s tth e OHCA and the O FM Q pr i orauthor i zat i on pr ogr am i n anal y zi ng and s tudy i ng ut i l i zat i on pat t erns of pr ovi der s and r eci pi ent s of outpat i ent b e h a v io ra l h e a lth s e rv ic e s . B yc o n tra st, th e re is n o p ro v isio n in th e c o n tra c t fo r O F M Q ’s in d e p e n d e n c e w ith regar d to pri or approv al of rei m bu rs em ent pl ans. Fr i t z t es t i fi ed thats he s poke w i th O FM Q s t aff r egul ar l y , and thatw hen an in d iv id u a l p ro v id e r ra ise d a c o n c e rn , sh e w o u ld o c c a sio n a llyc a ll O F M Q to di s cus s w hathappene d i n t hatpart i cul ari ns t ance . O H C A Fi nance D i r ect or D ebor ah O gl es t es t i fi ed thatFr i t z w as t he “go- betw een” betw een O FM Q and s e n i o re x e c u t i v e s a tOHC A. O F M Q ’s O u tpatient B eh av ioral H ea lth M an ag er, K i r k N i chol s on, t es t i fi ed thatFr i t z w as hi s pr i nci pl e cont actw i thi n O H C A , and th a t h e to u c h e d b a s e w ith h e r o n c e p e r w e e k . J ohn M aj or s t es t i fi ed thathe w itn e ss e d F ritz k ick a n O F M Q e m p lo y e e u n d e r th e tab le d u rin g a m e e tin g to ind icate tha t a pro v ider’s q u esti o n w as b est l ef t t o h er. M or eover , t her e w as evi dence s ugges t i ng thatFr i t z, and t o a l es s erext ent F o g a rty , h a d a n e x q u isite u n d e rsta n d in g o f th e re latio n sh ip b e tw e e n th e u n it m ix a p p ro v e d b yO F M Q a n d o v e ra ll o u tla y s fo r b e h a v io ra l a n d m e n ta l h e a lth s e rv ic e s .25

Forexampl e, i n an A pr i l 7, 1999 l et t erfr om Fr i t z t o Sean B l ack di s cus s i ng the pot ent i al cos ti m pactof H ous e B i l l 1075, Fr i t z w r ot e: T he as s um pt i on i s t hati f the pr ovi der s ar e abl e t o us e thei rbache l or t r ai ned empl oy ees t o pr ovi de the more expens i ve couns el i ng s ervi ces i ns t ead of

t he l es s err ei m bur s ed r ehab s ervi ces ther e w i l l be a s i gni fi cantt endenc yt o do s o. . . . I f H B 1075 w er e ena ct ed the O H C A coul d ant i ci pat e veryl i t t l e us e of the I ndi vi dual R ehab t reatm ent and co nti nu i ng high use o f t he co un sel i ng un i t s. In a m e m o layi n g o u t w h a t p lain tiffs re fe r to a s th e “ fo u r p o in t p lan ,” F ritz des cr i bes O FM Q ’ s r ol e as “s l ow [i ng] dow n” the gr ow th of pr i vat e pr ovi der se rv ice s, a n d sta tes th a t d o w n w a rd a dju stm e n t o f ra tes w a s in ten d e d to “ e lim in a te p ro v id e rs a n d se rv ice s.” B yc re d iti n g th e se sta tem e n ts, a re a so n a b le ju ro r c o u ld su relyd raw the in fe ren ce that F ri tz an d F o g artyex erc ised ti g h t sup erv isory con t rol ov er O F M Q and cl osel ytracked p ri vate pr ov i der r ei m bu rs em ents . C o u p led w ith o th e r e v id e n c e a d d u c e d a t trial, jur o rs c o u ld a lso re a so n a b ly relyo n the d ispa ri tyev iden ce as p roo f o f re tal iat o ryinjury . P lai n ti ff p rov iders t es t i fi ed thatt heys ervi ced the s ame popul at i on of pat i ent s as C M H C s and other pr i vat e pr ovi der s . C har l es Par khur s tt es t i fi ed t o fai r l yr egul arm ovementof p a tien ts b a c k a n d fo rth b e tw e e n D F S a n d a n e a rb yC M H C . S e v e ra l th ird -p a rty w i t nes s es corr obor at ed thatt es t i m ony . L i nda C offman, a l i cens ed pr ofes s i onal couns el oratSO FS, t es t i fi ed thats he coul d di s cern no di ffe r ence betw een the pat i entpopul at i on s he s ervi ced a therpr i orempl oy er , a l ocal C M H C , and that s e r v i c e d b yS OF S . M i c h a e l E l d e r , a n a t t o rn e ya n d o n e - t i me c o n s u l t a n tt o OHC A,26

t es t i fi ed thatt he s ervi ces pr ovi ded byC M H C s and pr i vat e pr ovi der s w er e “a l l t he s ame. ” N i chol s on t es t i fi ed that“[t ] he s ame t ype of s ervi ces as faras w hatt hey c a n p ro v id e a re a v a ilab le b e tw e e n th e tw o d iffe re n t – th e p riv a tes a n d p u b lic fa c iliti e s .” A l t hough pl ai nt i ffs di d notpr oduce pr e- 1999 dat a, and thus coul d nots how t hatthe r ei m bur s ementdi s par i t yw i dened a ft ert heyform ed the A s s oci at i on, ju ro rs c o u ld h a v e re lied o n p lain tiffs’ te stim o n yth a t th e n u m b e r a n d typ e o f u n its appr oved cha nged af

t ert heybegan l obby i ng. M aryPar khur s tt es t i fi ed thats he n o tice d a c h a n g e in O F M Q tre a tm e n t ap p ro v a ls a t D F S in late 1 9 9 9 th ro u g h e a rly 2 0 0 0 . E v a n s te stified th a t af ter th e A ss o c iatio n b e g a n lo b b y in g a t th e C a p ito l, “O FM Q gota l i t t l e t oughert o deal w i th. ” J ohn M aj or s t es t i fi ed thati n the Spr i ng of 19 99 , “ w he n we be ga n t o r e a l l ys pe a k o uta nd a s k fora c c ou nt a bi l i tyO FM Q b e g a n to c ra c k d o w n a n d a dju st. A n d a lm o st lik e c lo c k w o rk , w h e n th e re w o u ld be a bi g i s s ue att he ca pi t ol . . . m yt her api s t s w oul d s ays ounds l i ke y ou al l s poke o u t to d a y , b e c a u se w e ’re g e tti n g rejec tio n s, lo w e rin g u n its, m ajo r a dju stm e n ts to ourtr eatm entpl ans . ” N eal T hr i ftt es t i fi ed thats oon aft ert he A s s oci at i on began lo b b y in g , “ w e [ w e re ] n o t g iv e n a s m a n yu n its fo r t h e c o u n s e lin g s e rv ic e s .” C har l es Par khur s tt es t i fi ed thati n 2000, “[w ] e s t ar t ed gett i ng a l otof m o d ific a tio n s d o w n w a rd . W e s ta rt e d g e ttin g a lo t o f re q u e s ts fo r i n fo rm a tio n . W e g o t m o re te c h n ic a l d e n ia ls . It tu rn e d in to a n ig h tm a re .” Fur t herm or e, t her e w as atl eas ts om e evi dence t hatO H C A i ncr eas ed27

a d mi n i s t r a t i v e b u r d e n s o n p l a i n t i ff p r o v i d e r s d u r i n g th i s p e r i o d . Ho l c o mb t es t i fi ed thats oon aft erj oi ni ng t he A s s oci at i on he not i ced a del ayi n pr i or appr oval s . H e al s o t es t i fi ed thatdur i ng the pr oces s of gett i ng C om m i s s i on on A ccr edi t at i on of R ehabi l i t at i on Faci l i t i es ( “C A R F”) acc r edi t at i on forJ C H , one of th e a u d ito rs s p o k e w ith s o m e o n e a t O H C A . Im m ed iat elythere af ter, the a u d it o rs a t h is fa c ili tyid e n tifie d n e w p ro b lem s. H e f u rth e r te stified to re c e iv in g a c a ll fr om Fr i t z t el l i ng hi m t hathe had notbeen a ccr edi t ed, befor e he hi m s el f had be en no t i fi e d o f tha tfa c tbyCA RF. Ju rors c o u ld also h av e d raw n the ra ti o n al i n fe ren ce that p lai n ti ff p rov iders had an incenti ve to r equ esthigher val ue u nit s, and did i n fac trequestsuch u nit s. W il li am S ch m id, a cli n ical psy ch o log ist , test ifi ed that the p ri v ate p rov iders w o rk e d o ff

o f a fix e d c o st b a se , an d th u s h a d a stro n g in c e n tiv e to k e e p th e ir cl i ni ci ans pr ovi di ng t her apy , and, i deal l y , hi gherval ue uni t s of s ervi ce. “[Y ] ou re a lly c a n ’t m a k e u p a lo s s o n v o lu m e . I’ v e tr ie d ; it d o e s n ’t w o rk .” N o n e o f th is is to re f

u te th e v a lid ityo f

th e d istric t co u rt’s c o n c e rn s w ith r e s p e c tt o t h e a d m i t t e d l y i m p e r fe c td i s p a r i ty e v i d e n c e d e r i v e d f r o m t h e U n i s ys d a ta a n d te s tifie d to b yM c D a n ie l. V ie w in g th e tr ia l r e c o rd a s w h o le , a re a so n a b le ju ro r c o u ld c o n c lu d e th a t F o g a rtya n d F ritz m o v e d a g g re ss iv e lyin re sp o n se to a se v e re b u d g e t cr isis, b u t th a t all p o licyc h a n g e s d e sig n e d to re ig n in cos t s appl i ed t o pr i vat e pr ovi der s acr os s t he boar d, and thatt heydi d nothave the m e a n s to tar g e t th e p lain tiff p ro v id e rs e v e n if

th e yw ish e d to . Y e t a r e a so n a b leI n m anyw ay s , compar i ng t hi s cas e t o ourdeci s i on i n B ut cherv. C i tyof 14 M c Al e s t e r , 9 5 6 F . 2 d 9 7 3 ( 1 0 t h Ci r . 1 9 9 2 ) , i s i n s tru c t i v e . I n t h a tc a s e we re v iew e d th e d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f ju d g m e n t n o tw ith sta n d in g th e v e rd ict to s ever al ci t yempl oy ees i n a § 1983 Fi r s tA m endmentr et al i at i on s ui tbr oughtby m ember s of a l ocal fi r efi ght er s ’ uni on. D efe ndant s ar gued thatm uch of the evi dence w as ci r cumst ant i al and s pecul at i ve, and thatl i tt l e i f anyevi dence w ent t o per s onal par t i ci pat i on. I d. at976- 77. W e uphel d the j udgm enti n favorof the p lain tiffs, n o tin g th a t “in a § 1 9 8 3 p ro c e e d in g c irc u m sta n tial e v id e n c e g e n e ra lly pl ay s a maj orr ol e. ” I d. at978. W e furthernot ed thatt he evi dence , ci rcum st anti al t ho ug h itm ayhav e been , w as setagainsta back drop o f “i ntense em oti on al con fl i ctbetw een the C i tyand L ocal 228 4. ” Id. S i m i l arl y , i n thi s case t her e w as ampl e evi dence of a poi s onous , l ong- runni ng pol i t i cal batt l e betw een p lain tiffs a n d d e fe n d a n ts, a n d th a t b a c k d ro p w a s in su fficie n tlya c c o u n ted fo r in t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s pi ece m eal t r eatm entof pl ai nt i ffs ’ di s par i tyevi dence as w el l as o th e r e v id e n c e p re se n ted a t trial. 28 juro r co u ld also co m e to th e o p p o sit e c o n clus ion – that F o g artyan d F ri tz w ere p e rsis ten tlyh o stile to th e p lain tiff p ro v id e rs, w h o m th e yv iew e d a s d a m a g in g to O H C A ’ s i nt er es t s , and us ed thei rauthor i tyt o s i ngl e outpl ai nt i ff pr ovi der s for d isc rim in a to rytre a tm e n t. A c c o rd in g ly , the d istric t co u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in t a k i n g t h a td e t e r m i n a t i o n a w a y f r o m th e j u ry. 14 B Pl ai nt i ffs ar gued thati n addi t i on t o di r ect i ng O FM Q t o s cal e bac k on rei m bu rs em ents t o p l ai nti ff p rovi ders, defe nd ants used thei r autho ri tyt o incr ease t he n um ber and i ntrusi ven ess of O H C A aud i t s of t heirfaci l i t i es. T heyal so al l eged thatO H C A demanded l ar gerr ecoupment s of pr evi ous l ybi l l ed s ervi ces a f ter th e yb e g a n lo b b y in g a t th e C a p ito l. T h e S U R S u n it atO H C A w as r es pons i bl e fori dent i fy i ng s us pi ci ous and pot ent i al l yfr audul entbi l l i ng at29

num er ous M edi cai d- funded faci l i t i es , i ncl udi ng thos e pr ovi di ng behavi or al and m e n tal h e a lth se rv ice s. W e b b , S U R S ’s D ire c to r, tes tifie d th a t h e r u n it’s a u d it deci s i ons w er e bas ed on a c om bi nat i on of r efe rr al s and obj ect i ve cr i t er i a run t hr ough a s t at i s t i cal pr ogr am t o s pot s us pi ci ous bi l l i ng patt erns . W ebb, Fr i t z, and F o g a rt ya ll d e n ie d th a t a n ya u d its p e rfo rm e d b yth e S U R S u n it w e re re ta lia to ry. In it s d iscu ssion o f th is ev iden ce in the Ju ly9 , 2 0 0 3 o rde r, the d istri ct co u rt fo u n d th e re talia to rya u d it ev id e n c e su fficie n t to c re a te a ju ryq u e stio n , alb e it b a re ly : E vi dence as t o t he t i m i ng and s ever i tyof [O H C A ] ’ s audi t s of pl ai nt i ffs , t aken i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o pl ai nt i ffs and gi vi ng t hem t he bene fi tof al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s , m i ghts uppor tan i nfer ence t hats om e as pectof the audi t s w as r et al i at ory . A ny evi dence s ugges t i ng s uch r et al i at i on w as pur el yci r cumst ant i al t hough and, as w i t h t he evi dence r el at i ng t o otheri ns t ance s of c la im e d re ta lia tio n , e x tr a o rd in a ri ly th in . E v a n s v . F o g a rt y , N o . C IV -0 1 -0 2 5 2 -H E , s lip o p . a t 1 2 (W .D . O k la . J u ly 9 , 2 0 0 3 ). T h e c o u rt d id n o t re v isit th is a lleg e d p a ttern o f re talia tio n in its n e w trial o rd e r, in par tbeca us e i tfound thatt he j ur y ’ s damages aw ar ds att he fi r s tt r i al m us thave hi nged on the di s par i t yevi dence . A l t hough w e s har e the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s s kept i ci s m aboutt he evi dence offe r ed w i t h r es pectt o r et al i at or yaudi t s , a r eas onabl e j ur orcoul d have found for C har l es and M aryPar khur s tand thei rfac i l i ty , D FS, as agai ns tFr i t z bas ed on the e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d . M a r yP a r k h u r s tt e s t i fi e d t h a tDFS wa s a u d i t e d b yt h e S URS tea m in M a rc h 2 0 0 2 , an d th a t sh e re c e iv e d a n u n u su a llylar g e re c o u p m e n t re q u e st,30

a m o u n tin g to $ 1 6 ,0 0 0 , so o n th e re a f ter . C h a rle s P a rk h u rst te stified th a t th e b a sis forthe r ecoupmentdeci s i on w as neverexpl ai ned t o hi m . Fr i t z admi t t ed thats he compl ai ned t o t he SU R S uni taboutD FS. T hi s evi dence , t aken i n conj unct i on w i t h t es t i m onys how i ng t he cont ent i ous r el at i ons hi p of the part i es , coul d l ead a re a so n a b le ju ro r to c o n c lu d e th a t F ritz p e rso n a llyp a rticip a ted in th e d e c isio n to a u d i tD F S a n d t h a th e rm o t i v e i n m a k i n g t h a tr e fe rr a l w a s r e t a l i a t o ry. W i t h r es pectt o t he r emai nderof the audi tevi dence , i tw as s i m pl yt oo s pecul at i ve t o pr ove per s onal par t i ci pat i on orcaus at i on as t o anyof the defe ndant s . E vans t es t i fi ed thati m m edi at el yaft ers ervi ng an open r ecor ds r e q u e s th e wa s h i twi t h t wo u n u s u a l l yi n v a s i v e a u d i t s o f h i s fa c i l i ty , S OF S . He al s o t es t i fi ed thathe r ece i ved the r es ul t s fr om t hos e audi t s unus ual l yqui ckl y , and t hatthe r es ul tof a N ovember27, 2000 audi tw as hand- del i ver ed. Y eti n l i ghtof overw hel m i ng evi dence of m ul t i pl e pr obl ems atSO FS, undi s put ed evi dence t hat O H C A r ece i ved s ever al r efe r r al s fr om empl oy ees of SO FS, and the l ack of any evi dence l i nki ng anyof the defendant s t o the SO FS audi t s , no r eas onabl e j ur or cou l d h ave fou nd for E van s or SO F S on t his basi s. A udi t - r el at ed t es t i m onyfr om N eal T hr i ftand J ohn M aj or s w as al s o s pecul at i ve and c oul d notform a bas i s for l i a b i l i t y. C I n addi t i on t o t he audi tand di s par i tyevi dence , pl ai nt i ffs i ntr oduced evi dence att he fi r s tt r i al t hatdefe ndant s had bl ocked pl ai nt i ff pr ovi der s fr om31

r ece i vi ng t hei rs har e of tw o s uppl ement al appr opr i at i ons appr oved bythe O k lah o m a sta te le g isla tu re in e a rly2 0 0 0 . T h e first a p p ro p ria tio n a m o u n ted to $ 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 , a n d w a s p a s s e d in F e b ru a ry 2 0 0 0 ; th e s e c o n d , a m o u n tin g to $ 1 .1 m i l l i on , w as passed i n M arch 20 00 . C on si deri ng fede ral m at ching fu nd s, t hese appr opr i at i ons pr ovi ded $5. 2 m i l l i on i n addi t i onal fundi ng. I n i t s J ul y9, 2003 or der , the di s t r i ctcour tfound thatt he evi dence r el at i ng t o the s uppl ement al a p p r o p r i a t i o n c r e a t e d a j u r yq u e s t i o n o n p l a i n t i ffs ’ c l a i m: Pl ai nt i ffs t es t i fi ed that , al though theyw er e s ucce s s ful i n obt ai ni ng pas s age of

t he s uppl ement al appr opr i at i on, none of them re cei ved a n yre sto re d u n its. D e fe n d a n t F ritz te stified th a t re sto ra tio n o f u n its w as done on a c as e- by - cas e bas i s , dependi ng appar ent l yon w hether i tw as r equ est ed in a part i cularcase. Itw as unclearfrom plai nti ffs’ evi dence w hetherpl ai nt i ffs s oughts uch r es t or at i ons and w er e deni ed t hem, orw hethert heys i m pl yas s um ed the r es t or at i ons w oul d be acr os s t he boar d and ther efor e di d notpur s ue r ei m bur s ement s i n eac h affected case. H ow ever, con si deri ng t he ev i den ce i n the l i gh tm ost favor abl e t o pl ai nt i ffs and dr aw i ng al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s th e re f ro m , the C o u rt c o n c lu d e s th e e v id e n c e w a s s u ff icie n t to c re a te a ju ryq u e stio n a s to w h e th e r, in so m e fa sh io n , d e fe n d a n ts F o g a rty and/ orFr i t z r et al i at ed aga i ns tpl ai nt i ffs bys om ehow deny i ng them anypor t i on of the uni t s r es t or ed byt he s uppl ement al appr opr i at i on. E v a n s v . F o g a rt y , N o . C IV -0 1 -0 2 5 2 -H E , s lip o p . a t 8 -9 (W .D . O k la . J u ly 9 , 2 0 0 3 ). W e agr ee thatt he s uppl ement al appr opr i at i on evi dence cr eat ed a que s t i on of fa ct fo r th e ju rya n d th a t a r e a so n a b le ju ro r c o u ld h a v e fo u n d a g a in st F ritz a n d F o g a rty on this basi s. Sever al of the pl ai nt i ffs , i ncl udi ng N ancyG r aves - T hr i ft , E vans , J ohn M aj or s , and W heel er , t es t i fi ed thatnone of the s uppl ement al appr opr i at i on w as32

al l ocat ed t o t hei rfac i l i t i es vi a r es t or at i on of uni t s pr evi ous l ycut . T heyal l eged th a t th is f

u n d in g , w h ich w a s a llo c a ted to th e O H C A g e n e ra l f u n d , w a s w ith h e ld fr om them i n r et al i at i on fort hei rpol i t i cal act i vi t i es . T hi s t es t i m onyi s s uppor t ed b ya le tte r f

ro m S ta te S e n a to r C a l H o b s o n to F o g a rt y , d a te d A u g u s t 2 2 , 2 0 0 0 . T h a t lette r re a d s in p a rt: T he ca s e has been c onvi nci ngl ym ade t o m e thatdes pi t e a for m al r es t or at i on i n t he maxi m um num berof al l ow abl e s ervi ces , i n pr act i ce [O FM Q ] has been s y s t emat i cal l yand al m os tuni ver s al l yr ej ect i ng re q u e s ts to a u th o ri z e s e rv ic e s b a c k u p to th e tr a d itio n a l le v e ls . I ns t ead, t heyhave be en hol di ng pat i ent s atorbel ow t he r educe d l i m i t s s etw hi l e the cut s w er e i n pl ace . O t herevi dence , i n addi t i on t o t he H obs on l et t er , s how ed thatt hi s w as a mat t erof heat ed di s put e betw een O H C A and the A s s oci at i on, and thatthe A s s oci at i on m et w ith F o g artyo n the issu e. A t th is m ee ti n g F o g artysaid O H C A w o u ld n o t sup p o rt t he s uppl ement al appr opr i at i on. W i t h r es pectt o caus at i on, W heel ert es t i fi ed thatFogar tyas s ur ed hi m he w oul d l ook i nt o t he r es t or at i on of uni t s atW heel er ’ s fac i l i ty , and as s ur ed hi m t he m oneyw oul d fi nd i t s w ayi nt o t he pr ovi der s ’ pocket s . Fr i t z t es t i fi ed thatt he s uppl ement al appr opr i at i on r es ul t ed i n r es t or at i on of uni t s t o pr ovi der s , butt hat th o se u n its w e re re sto re d “ o n a c a se -b y -c a se b a sis .” In lig h t o f o th e r e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd , inc lu d in g e v id e n c e th a t F ritz a n d F o g a rtysu p e rv ise d O F M Q a p p ro v a ls t o pr i vat e pr ovi der s , a r eas onabl e j ur orcoul d fi nd agai ns tFr i t z and Fogartyon t he bas i s of thi s evi dence .33 D Pl ai nt i ffs al l eged a four t h patt ern of r et al i at i on, s peci fi c t o SO FS. T hey c laim e d th a t S O F S ’ M e d ica id c o n tra c t w a s te rm in a ted in Ja n u a ry2 0 0 1 in re talia tio n fo r E v a n s’ p o lit ica l ac tiv iti e s. S p e c ifica lly , p lain tiffs a lleg e d th a t F ritz and Fogar t yr et al i at ed aga i ns tE vans byt erm i nat i ng hi s contr acts oon aft erE vans se n t F o g a rtya d isc lo su re re q u e st u n d e r th e O p e n R e c o rd s A c t. S e e O k la. S tat. tit . 51, § 24A . E vans s entt hatr eques ton N ovember22, 2000. H e r ece i ved a l et t er fr om Fr i t z dat ed J anuary8, 2001, not i fy i ng hi m t hathi s contr acthad bee n t erm i nat ed. T he di s t r i ctcour tfound i n i t s J ul y9, 2003 or dert hatt her e w as su fficie n t ev id e n c e o n th is q u e stio n to c re a te a triab le is su e o f fa c t fo r th e ju ry : “Fi nal l y , t he evi dence s how ed the medi cai d contr actof [SO FS] w as notr enew ed, w hi ch i s act i onabl e, adver s e ac t i on as t o i t . ” Evans v. Fogar ty , N o. C I V - 01- 0252- H E , s l i p op. at12 ( W . D . O kl a. J ul y9, 2003) . T he r ecor d i ncl udes evi dence s how i ng pr obl ems atSO FS. E vans hi d hi s i nvol vementw i th SO FS i n vi ol at i on of b o th O H C A ru les a n d h is M e d ica id c o n tra c t. Itis al so fa ir lyclea r th ere w ere p e rsis ten t b ill in g p ro b lem s a t S O F S fa c ili ties . H o w e v e r, w e a g re e th a t a r e a s o n a b l e j u r o rc o u l d h a v e fo u n d t h e t e r m i n a t i o n r e t a l i a t o ry. T her e w as ampl e evi dence fr om w hi ch a r eas onabl e j ur orcoul d concl ude th a t E v a n s’ p o lit ica l ac tiv iti e s w e re irritatin g to F ritz a n d F o g a rty . M u lti p le c o mmu n i c a t i o n s r e v e a l t h e b a t t l e Ev a n s wa g e d wi th OHCA a n d s e v e r a l OHCA document s demonstr at e thatO H C A pai d cl os e att ent i on t o SO FS. Fur therm or e,34

s om e evi dence s ugges t ed thatFr i t z and Fogartyw er e per s onal l yi nvol ved i n the t erm i nat i on deci s i on. A n i nt ernal O H C A documents how ed thatFogar tyw as per s onal l yi nvol ved i n a dec i s i on t o hol d SO FS’ t erm i nat i on i n abey ance fol l ow i ng a s t at e r epr es ent at i ve’ s r eques tt o keep SO FS’ fa ci l i t i es open. A ccor di ngl y , a r eas onabl e j ur orcoul d have found t he t erm i nat i on deci s i on t o be r e t a l i a t o r y. E Pl ai nt i ffs expende d s ubs t ant i al t i m e att he fi r s tt r i al offe r i ng evi dence of al l egedl yhos t i l e, defa m at or y , and thr eat eni ng comm ent s m ade t o i ndi vi dual p lain tiffs b yF o g a rtya n d B ro w n . T h e d istric t co u rt re lied o n th is e v id e n c e to d e n yJ M OL t o Br o wn a n d F o g a r tya s t o a l l i n d i v i d u a l p l a i n t i ffs e x c e p tHo l c o mb ( w ho di d notact i vel yl obbybefor e the s t at e l egi s l atur e) , r el y i ng on Suar ez. It r ecogni zed thatfede r al cour t s have hi s t or i cal l ybeen c haryof ext endi ng § 1983 l i abi l i t yt o defa m at i on, s ee Paul v. D avi s , 424 U . S. 693, 702 ( 1976) , buthel d t hat a § 1983 cl ai m m ays ucce ed i f defamat i on i s “coupl ed w i th s om e thr eat , s anct i on ors i m i l arr et al i at or yact i on. ” Evans v. Fogar ty , N o. C I V - 01- 0252- H E , s l i p op. at 12 ( W . D . O kl a. J ul y9, 2003) . W i thoutr eac hi ng the ques t i on of w hetherw e fi nd S u a r e z p e r s u a s i v e , we d i s c e r n n o b a s i s i n th e r e c o r d fo rh o l d i n g F o g a r tyo rBr o wn lia b le b e c a u s e o f

th e irc o m m e n ts to p la in tiffs . N ancyG r aves - T hr i ftt es t i fi ed that , w hi l e s he w as i n a publ i c r es tr oom at t he st at e C apit ol, B row n sai d: “[Y ]ou al l are w ast i ng y ou r t i m e here. T hese35

peopl e ca n’ thel p y ou. W e ca n hel p y ou. Y ou’ r e j us tm aki ng m yj ob har der . ” S h e f u rth er testi fied that F o g artysaid to h er, “[Y ]ou ’re n o t help ing m e, y o u ’re hur t i ng m e. ” Fi nal l y , s he t es t i fi ed thats he w i tnes s ed B r ow n “fl i p off” J ohn M aj or s ( t es t i m onyw hi ch M aj or s corr obor at ed) . C har l es Par khur s tt es t i fi ed that wh i l e h e s t o o d o u t s i d e a c o mmi t t e e r o o m a tt h e Ca p i t o l , F o g a r tya s k e d h i m, “W hatcan w e do t o m ake [ H ous e B i l l ] 1075 go aw ay ?” C ynthi a M aj or s t es t i fi ed Fogar t ythr eat ened thati f herhus band J ohn M aj or s cont i nued t o l obbyatt he C api t ol , “he c oul d s end s om eone dow n t o i nves t i gat e [he r ] nur s i ng hom e for fr audul entbi l l i ng. ” G err ol A dki ns , C ynthi a M aj or s ’ father , corr obor at ed her tes tim o n yo n th is p o in t. Jo h n M ajo rs te stified th a t h e a tten d e d a m e e tin g w ith Fogar t yand var i ous s t at e l egi s l at or s atw hi ch Fogartyl abel ed the mem ber s of the A ss o c iatio n “ f

ra u d s a n d c ro o k s.” F in a lly , E v a n s te stified th a t h e sp o k e to F o g a rty o n th e p h o n e w h ile a t th e C a p ito l an d F o g a rtya sk e d , “D o y o u th in k y o u c o u ld t al k to y ou r gr ou p an d see i f y ou cou l d g ett hem t o st op t ry i ng t o g ett his H ou se B i l l 1075 pas s ed?” In P a u l, th e C o u rt h e ld th a t inju ryto re p u tatio n , alo n e , is in su fficie n t to e s ta b lis h a d e p ri v a tio n o f a p la in tiff ’s D u e P ro c e s s ri g h ts . 4 2 4 U .S . a t 7 1 2 . R a th e r, p lain tiffs m u st s h o w th a t a “ rig h t o r sta tu s p re v io u slyre c o g n ize d b ysta te l a w w a s d i s t i n c t l y a l t e r e d o re x t i n g u i s h e d . ” I d . a t7 1 1 ; s e e a l s o S i e g e r tv . G i l l e y, 5 0 0 U .S . 2 2 6 , 2 3 4 (1 9 9 1 ). A c c o rd in g ly , d e fe n d a n ts’ c o m m e n ts, e v e n if d e fa ma t o r yo rh o s t i l e , c a n n o tfo r m th e b a s i s fo ra § 1 9 8 3 a c t i o n a b s e n ts o me36

a n c ill a ryc h a n g e in p lain tiffs’ s tatu s (i.e ., inju ry ), w h ich p lain tiffs fa iled to demonstr at e. See H ar deman v. C i tyof A l buquer que, 377 F. 3d 1106, 1118- 19 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (“ W e h a v e n e v e r fo u n d a F irst A m e n d m e n t v io latio n o n th e b a sis o f d is p a ra g in g c o m m e n ts a lo n e .” ). O n t he otherhand, t hr eat s of off i ci al s anct i ons ai m ed atdi s cour agi ng pr ot ect ed ac t i vi t ycan for m t he bas i s of a c ons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on. See B ant am B o o k s, In c . v . S u lli v a n , 3 7 2 U .S . 5 8 , 6 7 (1 9 6 3 ). Y e t n o re a so n a b le ju ro r c o u ld fin d th a t an yo f

th e a lleg e d c o m m e n ts, w ith o n e p o ss ib le e x c e p tio n , co u ld cons t i tut e a thr eatt hatw oul d “chi l l a per s on of or di naryfi r m nes s . ” W orr el l , 219 F. 3d at1212. N ori s Suar ez on poi nt . I n thatcas e a de fenda ntt ol d pl ai nt i ffs that i tw oul d “bec om e hi s m i s s i on t o caus e as m uch pai n, damage, and i nj ur yas pos s i bl e t o [them]. ” 202 F. 3d at680. H e furtherthr eat ened thathe w oul d “i nfl i ct the m ax im u m d eg ree o f p en alty ” if p lai n ti ffs ref u sed to ag ree to a tem p o rary inju n c tio n . Id . W h ile th e sta tem e n ts a lleg e d to h a v e b e e n m a d e b yd e fe n d a n ts in t hi s cas e evi nce a l evel of di s cour s e thatfal l s w el l s hor tof ourpubl i c i deal s , none of the comm ent s ar e ana l ogous t o the s peci fi c thr eat s ati s s ue i n Suar ez. T he one pos s i bl e exc ept i on t o thi s anal y s i s i s the al l eged thr eatm ade by Fogar t yt o C ynthi a M aj or s . W hi l e w e ar e s kept i cal thatthe phone c al l betw een Fogar t yand C ynt hi a M aj or s coul d be cons trued as an “i m m i nent[thr eatof] a d v e rse re g u lato rya c tio n ,” s e e B lan k e n sh ip v . M a n c h in , 4 7 1 F .3 d 5 2 3 , 5 2 9 (4 th C i r . 2006) , w e nee d notr eac h t he i s s ue. T he j urycoul d have i m pos ed l i abi l i tyonD efe ndant s ar gue on appe al t hatO kl ahoma’ s t w o- y ears t atut e of 15 l i m i t at i ons for§ 1983 cl ai m s , s ee O kl a. St at . t i t . 12, § 95, bar s r ecove ryon the b a s is o f th e C yn th ia M ajo rs c a ll, b e c a u s e th a t c a ll o c c u rr e d in M a rc h 1 9 9 9 . B e c a u se d e fe n d a n ts d id n o t ra ise th is d e fe n se b e lo w , h o w e v e r, w e c o n sid e r it w ai ved. See M al andr i s v. M err i l l L ynch, Pi er ce, Fenner& Sm i th, I nc. , 703 F. 2d 1 1 5 2 , 1 1 7 1 -72 (10 th C ir . 1 9 8 1 ). W e tak e n o p o sitio n o n w h e th e r th e ter m s “ c ro o k s” a n d “ f ra u d s,” u se d in 16 t hi s cont ext , w er e i n fac tdefa m at or y , as oppos ed t o w or ds of gene r al d isp a ra g e m e n t o r a b u se . W e a lso n o te, fo r th e sa k e o f c lar ity , tha t th e e v id e n c e is a m b i g u o u s a s t o w h e t h e rt h e s e r e m a r k s w e r e a t tr i b u t e d t o B r o w n o rF o g a r ty. 37 Fogar t yw i t h r es pectt o C ynt hi a M aj or s and herfac i l i ty , M or ni ng St ar , bas ed on t he o t her al l eged patt erns of ret al i at i on . S ee P artII I. A supra. C ynthi a M aj ors’ m ember s hi p i n t he A s s oci at i on i ncl udes heri n the gr oup of pl ai nt i ffs thathave es t abl i s hed pol i t i cal act i vi t yon t he fa ct s of thi s cas e. E vi dence of ca us at i on and i nj ur yar e di s cus s ed above . 15 Ac c o r d i n g l y , we c o n c l u d e i twa s e rr o rfo rt h e d i s tr i c tc o u r tt o d e n yJ M OL to B ro w n a s to a ll p lain tiffs fo llo w in g th e first tria l. T h e d istric t co u rt b a se d its deni al t o B r ow n on hercomm ent s l abel i ng s om e of the defendant s “cr ooks ” and “fr auds , ” hol di ng t hat“[s ] uch comm ent s , i f m ade, ar guabl ygo bey ond the s cope of thatw hi ch the Fi r s tA m endmentpr ot ect s . ” Evans v. Fogar ty , N o. C I V - 01- 0252- H E , s l i p op. at11 ( W . D . O kl a. J ul y9, 2003) . Y etfort he r eas ons s t at ed above, s uch comm ent s ar e atm os tdefa m at ory , and do not , s t andi ng al one, pr ovi de a ba s i s forr ecove r yi n a § 1983 ac t i on. A s t o the otherpatt erns of 16 r et al i at i on di s cus s ed i n t he pr ece di ng s ect i ons , pl ai nt i ffs offe r ed no evi dence t hat B r ow n had anyauthor i t yw i t h r es pectt o O FM Q ort he SU R S uni t , ort hats heP l a i n t i ffs a r g u e t h a tBr o wn wa i v e d h e rc h a l l e n g e t o t h e d e n i a l o f J M OL 17 a f ter th e first tria l b yin su fficie n tlysp e c if y in g th e g ro u n d s fo r JM O L in h e r R u le 50( a) m ot i on. A l t hough pl ai nt i ffs ’ r es pons e t o B r ow n’ s m ot i on forJ M O L t ook issue w ith B row n ’s t esti m o n yo n m an yg rou n d s, inclu d ing h er “ flag ran t disrega rd forthe trut h and cons t antw i l l i ngnes s t o s ayanythi ng t o pr om ot e hal f truths or n o n -truth s, ” itsay s n o thing in reg ard to p rese rva ti o n o f th is i ssu e. T h ere fo re p lain tiffs m a yn o t n o w a rg u e w a iv e r o n th e p a rt o f B ro w n , h a v in g w a iv e d th is o bje c tio n th e m s e lv e s . S e e G u id e s , L td . v . Y a rm o u th G ro u p P ro p . M g m t., I n c ., 2 9 5 F . 3 d 1 0 6 5 , 1 0 7 6 n . 3 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). B ot h Fr i t z and Fogart yl i m i tt hei rs peci fi c damages chal l enges t o the 18 s econd tr i al ver di ct . Fogar t y ’ s ent i r e ar gum enti n hi s pr i nci pal br i ef w i th r es pect t o the damages aw ar ded att he fi r s tt r i al i s a par agr aph addr es s i ng the pr opr i etyof th e n e w trial o rd e r, n o t th e a w a rd s th e m se lv e s. F ritz’ s a rg u m e n t o n th is p o in t in herpr i nci pal br i ef i s s i m i l ar l ys kel et al – s he devot es al l of fourl i nes t o the m a tte r, n o n e o f

w h ic h p re s e rv e s p e c ific o bje c tio n s o r m e n tio n s p e c ific p la in tiffs . T h is w o u ld n o rm a lly c o n s titu te w a iv e r a s to th e d a m a g e s a w a rd e d a t th e fir s t tr ia l. See A dl erv. W al - M artSt or es , I nc. , 144 F. 3d 664, 679 ( 10th C i r . 1998) (c o n tin u e d ...) 38 personall ypart i ci pated i n thatret al i at oryact i vity . P l ai nti ffs’ cl ai m s agai nst B r ow n ar e uns uppor t ed byt he evi dence , and ar e pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed as a mat t erof l a w. 17 IV D efe ndant s ar gue thateven i f the evi dence att he fi r s tt r i al w er e s uffi ci ent t o s upporta fi ndi ng of l i abi l i t y , damages t o both the corpor at e and i ndi vi dual pl ai nt i ffs w er e “s o exce s s i ve as t o s hock the j udi ci al cons ci ence and t o r ai s e an i rr esi st i ble i nference thatpassi on , prej ud i ce, corrup t i on or i m proper cause i nvaded the tr i al , ” s ee Fi t zger al d v. M ount ai n St at es T el . & T el . C o. , 68 F. 3d 1257, 1261 ( 10t h C i r . 1995) , and, i n the ca s e of the corpor at e pl ai nt i ffs , w i thout a n ye c o n o m ic b a sis . T h e a m o u n t o f d a m a g e s a w a rd e d a t th e first tria l, bo th to 18( . . . cont i nued) 18 (“ A rg u m e n ts in a d e q u a te ly b ri e fe d in th e o p e n in g b ri e f a re w a iv e d .” ). N evert hel es s , i n l i ghtof the unus ual pr ocedur al pos tur e of thi s cas e and the sim ilarityb e tw e e n th e first a n d se c o n d trial d a m a g e a w a rd s, w e w ill c o n sid e r th is i s s ue pr es erved. See Sus s m an v. Pat t er s on, 108 F. 3d 1206, 1210 ( 10th C i r . 1997) ( hol di ng t hatt he “ge ner al w ai verrul e i s notabs ol ut e, . . . and w e maydepartfr om itin o u r discre ti o n ”) (alt era ti o n o m itted). I ns ofaras the di s t r i ctcourtfound thatt he al l ocat i on of i ndi vi dual 19 damages betw een the defendant s r ai s ed an i nfer ence t hatpas s i on orpr ej udi ce i nfec t ed the fi r s tt r i al ver di ct , w e not e thatt hatal l ocat i on of l i abi l i t i es does not s hock the cons ci ence of thi s courtupon r evi ew of the evi dence . 39 t he corpor at e and i ndi vi dual pl ai nt i ffs , w as a mat t erof conc ern t o the di s tr i ct cour t , and w as a keyfac t ori n i t s gr ant i ng a new tr i al . E vans v. Fogar ty , N o. C I V - 01- 0252- H E , s l i p op. at3 ( W . D . O kl a. A ug. 25, 2003) ( “The suffi ci encyof t he evi dence t o s uppor tt he damages aw ar ded i n thi s cas e i s al s o centr al t o the C our t ’ s concl us i on t hata new t r i al m us tbe or der ed. ”) . T he courtpr i m ar i l yt ook i s s ue w i t h t he aw ar ds t o t he corpor at e pl ai nt i ffs , fi ndi ng t he j ury ’ s al l ocat i on of damages t o be “form ul ai c, ” and furtherfi ndi ng thatt he aw ar ds coul d notbe 19 s uppor t ed byanypl aus i bl e meas ur e of l os tpr ofi t s . I d. at5. I tal s o deemed the i ndi vi dual damages aw ar ds t o be “pl ai nl yexce s s i ve. ” I d. at6. O u r re v iew o f

a ju ry ’s fin d in g s w ith re sp e c t to d a m a g e s is lim ited to w h e th e r t h e ya re s u p p o rt e d b ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . D o d o o v . S e a g a te T e c h ., I nc. , 235 F. 3d 522, 531 ( 10t h C i r . 2000) . “[A ] bs entan aw ar d s o exce s s i ve or i nadequa t e as t o s hock the j udi ci al cons ci ence and r ai s e an i rr es i s t i bl e i nfer ence that p assio n , p rejud ice o r an o ther im p rop er c au se in v ad ed the tri al, the ju ry ’s40

det erm i nat i on of the amountof damages i s i nvi ol at e. ” I d. ( quot at i on and al t er at i on om i t t ed) . W hen an a ppel l at e courtconcl udes a damages aw ar d w as e rro n e o u slye x c e ss iv e , b u t th a t n o e rro r ta in ted th e ju ry ’s fin d in g o f liab ili ty , it m a yo rd e r a re m ittit u r o r d ir e c t a n e w tr ia l. S e e M a la n d ri s , 7 0 3 F .2 d a t 1 1 6 8 . W i t h these s t and ards i n m i nd , w e turn fi rs tt o the i nd i vidual plai nti ffs’ aw ards, and t hen t o the corporat e plai nti ffs’ aw ards. A 1 In th e fir st tri al, the ju ryaw ard ed E v an s $ 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 in co m p en sato ry d a m a g e s a s a g a in st F o g a rtya n d $ 1 5 0 ,0 0 0 a s a g a in st F ritz. T h e se su m s a p p e a r to be atthe upperr ange of emot i onal damages uphel d i n thi s ci r cui t , s ee D odoo, 235 F. 3d at532 ( aff

i r m i ng emot i onal damages i n the amountof $125, 000) ; Sm i th v. N w . Fi n. A cce pt ance , I nc. , 129 F. 3d 1408, 1416 ( 10th C i r . 1997) ( aff i r m i ng emot i onal damages i n t he amountof $200, 000) , buton ourr evi ew of the r ecor d, w e ca nnots ayt hatt heys hock the j udi ci al cons ci ence . E vi dence pr es ent ed att r i al a llo w e d th e ju ryto fin d th a t F ritz a n d F o g a rtya c ted to ter m in a te E v a n s’ M e d ica id contr act , effect i vel yput t i ng hi m outof bus i nes s . E vans t ook the l ead fort he A s s oci at i on i n fi l i ng a di s cl os ur e r eques tw i th the O H C A , and s om e evi dence s u g g e s te d th a t E v a n s s u ffe re d ta rg e te d re ta lia tio n a s a re s u lt o f th a t r e q u e s t. M o r e o v e r , Ev a n s t e s t i fi e d t o e n g a g i n g i n a l o n g - ru n n i n g b a t t l e wi th OHCA offi ci al s t o keep hi s fac i l i t i es open. H e s t at ed thathi s s truggl es t o keep ope n41

S O F S faci l i t i es l efthim w i t h a lar ge p ers on al deb t , caused him subst anti al stres s over a num ber of y ear s , and caus ed hi m t o l os e 25- 30 pounds . Such t es t i m ony supp ort ed a fi nd i ng t hat he l i ved i n co nst ant fearof ret al i at i on byO H C A against his bu si ness. C ont r aryt o defe ndant s ’ s ugges t i on, t her e i s no rul e i n thi s ci r cui tr equi r i ng c o rr o b o ra tio n o f

a p la in tiff ’s te s tim o n yto s u p p o rt a n e m o tio n a l d a m a g e s a w a rd . See, e. g. , D odoo, 235 F. 3d at532; compar e K oopm an v. W at erD i s t . N o. 1, 41 F . 3d 14 17 , 14 20 (10t h C i r. 19 94 ) ( den y i ng em oti on al dam ages w hen no w i tness t es t i m onycorr obor at ed pl ai nt i ff’ s m ent al s t at e, and ci r cumst ance s affor ded no bas i s t o i nfers t r es s w as caus ed bya r ecove r abl e i nj ur y ) . N ordo w e ac cept F og arty ’s argum ent that Ev ans’ t est i m on yreferred sol el yt o eco no m i c con cerns – rathe r, E v an s’ t esti m o n yw en t t o em o ti o n al distr ess c au sed b yF ri tz an d F o g arty ’s re ta lia tio n a n d w a s s u ffic ie n t to s u p p o rt a n a w a rd o f e m o tio n a l d a m a g e s . A s t o t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s fi ndi ng thatW ul f v. C i tyof W i chi t a, 883 F. 2d 842 ( 10t h C i r . 1989) , s eta $50, 000 “gui depos t ” foremot i onal di s tr es s damages , t hat concl us i on m i s r eads ourhol di ng. I n W ul f w e r educe d an emot i onal damages aw ar d of $250, 000 t o $50, 000 i n a Fi r s tA m endmentr et al i at i on cas e i n w hi ch the re talia to ryinju ryw a s th e lo ss o f th e p lain tiff ’s jo b . Id . at 8 7 5 . N o th in g in W u lf c o n tra d icts th e b a sic p rin c ip le th a t a ju ry ’s d a m a g e s a w a rd is h ig h lysp e c ific to t he fa ct s and ci r cumst ance s of the ca s e. M or e gene r al l y , i tbear s r epea t i ng that c o m p e n sa tio n in c a se s in v o lv in g c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts s h o u ld n o t b e a p p ro a c h e d in42

a mi s er l yfas hi on. “I ti s i n t he publ i c i nt er es tthatther e be a r eas onabl ys paci ous appr oach t o a fa i rcompensa t or yaw ar d fordeni al orcurt ai l m entof the r i ght . ” Fost erv. M C I T el ecomm s . C orp. , 773 F. 2d 1116, 1121 ( 10th C i r . 1985) . U nder t hatr el at i vel ygener ous s t andar d, and ca r eful l ycons i der i ng t he fa ct s of thi s cas e, w e ca nnots ayt hatt he j ur y ’ s compensa t or ydamages aw ar d t o E vans s hocks the j udi ci al cons ci ence . 2 T he juryaw arded W heeler$1 77 , 00 0 in com pen sat orydam ages ag ai nst Fogar t yand $88, 500 i n compensa t or ydamages agai ns tFr i t z. T hi s aw ar d fi nds no bas i s i n the r ecor d. W heel erdi d nott es t i fyt hathe s uffe r ed anyemot i onal di s t r es s , norcoul d anyot herevi dence i ntr oduced a tt r i al s uppor tan i nfer ence t hat h e su ffe re d su c h d istre ss . A c c o rd in g ly , W h e e ler fa iled to p ro v e c o m p e n sa b le inju ry a s to a n yo f

th e d e fe n d a n ts , a n d o n ly n o m in a l d a m a g e s w e re a p p ro p ri a te . See Li ppol dtv. C ol e, 468 F. 3d 1204, 1220- 21 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( uphol di ng di s t r i ct c o u rt a w a rd o f

n o m in a l d a m a g e s in a § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n d u e to p lain tiffs’ fa ilu re to p ro v e c o m p e n sa b le inju ry ). W e re m a n d th e v e rd ict in fa v o r o f W h e e ler w ith di r ect i ons t hatt he tr i al cour tent era r emi t t i turor derforacc ept ance of a j udgm ent of $ 1 in nom i nal dam ages ag ai nstF og artyand $1 i n n om i nal dam ages ag ai nst F ri tz . 3 A s to the rem ainin g ind ividu al plaintiffs, th e juryaw ard ed co m p en sato ryT hes e amount s ar e netof anydamages aw ar ded aga i ns tB r ow n. 20 43 damages r angi ng fr om $450, 000 ( C ynthi a M aj or s ) t o $1, 350, 000 ( N eal and N ancy T hr i ft , i ndi vi dual l y ) . W i t h t he exc ept i on of the C ynthi a M aj or s aw ar d, al l ot her 20 i nd i vidual plai nti ffs w ere aw arded at l east$9 00 , 00 0. A l tho ug h all of those aw ar ds ar e s uppor t ed byatl eas ts om e evi dence t hatt he pl ai nt i ff r ece i vi ng the aw ar d s uffe r ed emot i onal di s t r es s , w e conc l ude thes e aw ar ds ar e s o exce s s i ve as t o s hock the j udi ci al cons ci ence , and thatr emi t t i turi s appr opr i at e. A s s t at ed su p ra , o u r d isc re tio n to re v iew ju rya w a rd s is lim ited , an d o u r a p p ro a c h is nece s s ar i l ydefe r ent i al . N evert hel es s , even r ecogni zi ng the unus ual ci r cumst ance s o f th is case an d the th rea t defen d an ts po sed to p lai n ti ffs’ l iveliho o d s, the ju ry ’s aw ar ds t o t he r emai ni ng i ndi vi dual pl ai nt i ffs s o faroutpace emot i onal damages aw ar ds s anct i oned i n t hi s and otherci r cui t s t hatw e ar e compel l ed t o or der rem itti tur. T her e i s pr ece denti n t hi s ci r cui tforan appe l l at e pane l t o actual l ys ett he amount of the r emi t t i tur . See M al andr i s , 703 F. 2d at1178; s ee a l s o 11 W r i ghtet al. , F ed era l Pra cti ce an d P roc ed u re: C ivil 2 d § 2 8 2 0 (“If th e a p p ell ate c o u rt co n clud es th at th e v erd ictis ex ce ssive , itn ee d n o t nec essa ri lyrev erse an d o rde r a new tri al . Itm aygive pl ai nti ff an al t ernat i ve b yorderi ng a new t ri al un l ess pl ai nt i ff w i l l cons entt o a r emi t t i turi n a s peci fi ed amount . ”) . T hati s t he r es ol ut i on s oughtbypl ai nt i ffs i n the eve ntw e w er e t o r ei ns t at e s om e oral l of the44

c o m p e n s a to ry d a m a g e s a w a rd e d a t th e fir s t tr ia l. W e d e n yth a t r e q u e s t. N ot w i t hs t andi ng ourauthor i tyt o do s o, w e ar e r el uct antt o i nvade the p ro v in c e o f

th e trial c o u rt in se tti n g a re m itt itu r a m o u n t, as th e p a n e l d id in M al andr i s . T he di s t r i ctcourthas hear d al l of the evi dence , and i s i n a bett er p o s itio n to s e le c t th e a m o u n t o f a n a p p ro p ri a te re m ittit u r t h a n is th is p a n e l. A j ur yhas t w i ce a w ar ded compens at orydamages t o the i ndi vi dual pl ai nt i ffs , and the d istric t co u rt h a s h e a rd a ll o f th a t ev id e n c e . H a v in g re v iew e d th e re c o rd , w h ich is m or e than 16, 000 pages i n l ength, w e ar e convi nced thatthe amountof r emi t t i tur sh o u ld n o t b e so sm a ll as to a m o u n t to n o a w a rd a t all, n o r th a t th e re d u c tio n a s to a n yin d iv id u a l p lain tiff b e u n re a so n a b le. T h e re a re n o t m a n yc a se s in th is c irc u it t o gui de the di s t r i ctcour ton t hi s poi nt , butw e do not e thatthe pane l ’ s r educt i on i n M al and ri s w as tw o-thir ds. Y etw e mustqual i fyourhol di ng w i th r es pectt o tw o of the r emai ni ng i ndi vi dual pl ai nt i ffs – C ynt hi a M aj or s and M aryPar khur s t . T he onl yevi dence w h ich c o u ld su p p o rtan aw ard o f e m o ti o n al da m ag es in fa v o r of C yn thia M ajors w as hert es t i m onyr egar di ng t he Fogar typhone ca l l , and J ohn M aj or s ’ t es t i m ony t hatdefe ndant s ’ r et al i at i on had damaged thei rm arr i age. M or eover , i tw as undi s put ed thatC ynt hi a M aj or s pl ay ed a mi norr ol e i n the A s s oci at i on’ s l obby i ng act i vi t i es and had no r ol e i n the day - t o- dayoper at i on of M or ni ng St ar . H er t hr eadba r e t es t i m onyi s qui t e s i m i l art o the pl ai nt i ff’ s t es t i m onyi n W ul f. L i ke t he co urti n thatcase, “w e agree w i th d efen dan t s that [al tho ug h p l ai nti ff’s]45

t es t i m onyand the evi dence pr es ent ed ar e notthe mostgr aphi c and de t ai l ed di s pl ayof emot i onal and ment al angui s h and di s tr es s , w e ca nnotconcl ude that s om e aw ar d fors uch angui s h and di s tr es s i s uns uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . ” 883 F. 2d at875. A ccor di ngl y , t he s t andar d of r eas onabl enes s w i th r es pectt o the C ynthi a M aj ors aw ard m aycou nsel a reducti on great er than that i n M al and ri s. W e r eac h t he s ame r es ul tw i th r egar d t o the j ury ’ s emot i onal damages a w a rd to M a ryP a rk h u rst. S h e o ffe re d tes tim o n yth a t w a s ta n g e n tial, at b e st, to t he i s s ue of e m ot i onal di s t r es s : “W el l , I have gr ayhai rnow . A nd i tdoes m ake – i t ’ s verys t r es s ful . A nd I t el l y ou, I fee l l i ke a l i t t l e mouse ba cked off i n a corner w ith a b ig ca t si tt ing u p there g ri n n ing at m e re ad yto p o u n ce an yti m e. T h at’s how w e fe el beca us e of the thr eatthatw e fe el . A l l the t i m e w e l i ve w i th that fe ar.” L ike C yn thia M ajors’ testi m o n y , this ev iden ce is si m p lytoo thin to su p p o rt a l arge aw ard for em oti on al dis t res s. A ccordi ng l y , the st and ard of reasonab l eness w i t h r es pectt o t he M aryPar khur s taw ar d m ayal s o couns el a r educt i on gr eat er t han thati n M al andr i s . W i t h r es pectt o al l i ndi vi dual pl ai nt i ffs w e hol d, l i ke the M al andr i s panel , t hatt heyar e fr ee t o acc eptthe r emi t t i turor der ed bythe di s tr i ct cour tor , i n t he al t ernat i ve, t o pur s ue a ne w tr i al as t o al l i s s ues , i ncl udi ng l i abi l i t y . See 703 F. 2d at1178. B F o llo w in g th e ju ry ’s v e rd ict in fa v o r o f a ll p lain tiffs a n d a g a in st a ll defe ndant s on l i abi l i t yand compens at or ydamages , pl ai nt i ffs s oughtpuni t i ve46

damages agai ns t al l defe ndant s i n a s econd- s t age pr ocee di ng. E vans , N ancy G ra v e s-T h rif

t, an d Jo h n M ajo rs te stified d u rin g th e p u n iti v e d a m a g e s s tag e , as d id B r ow n, Fr i t z, Fogar t y , and M i t chel l . T he j urys ubs equent l yaw ar ded puni t i ve d a m a g e s in th e a m o u n t o f $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 in fa v o r o f

a ll i n d iv id u a l p lain tiffs a g a in st a ll d e fe n d a n ts, fo r a to tal p u n iti v e d a m a g e s a w a rd o f $ 1 ,3 5 0 ,0 0 0 . D e fe n d a n ts chal l enge thes e aw ar ds as uns uppor t ed byt he evi dence , butdo notar gue thatt he am o u n t of

the a w ard s co n sti tutes a D u e P roc ess v iolati o n . S ee , e.g., S tat e F arm M ut . A ut o. I ns . C o. v. C ampbel l , 538 U . S. 408 ( 2003) . T he di s tr i ctcourtdi d not m ent i on the j ur y ’ s puni t i ve damages aw ar ds i n the new t r i al or derori n i t s J ul y9, 2 0 0 3 o rd e r, b u t v a c a ted th e se a w a rd s a lo n g w ith a ll o th e rs b yg ra n tin g d e fe n d a n ts a n e w trial. Puni t i ve damages ar e ava i l abl e i n § 1983 act i ons , butt he bur den of pr oof w ith re s p e c t to p u n itiv e d a m a g e s is h ig h e r t h a n th a t r e q u ir e d to fin d lia b ility. Such damages ar e onl yavai l abl e “w hen the defendant ’ s conducti s s how n t o be m ot i vat ed byevi l m ot i ve ori nt ent , orw hen i ti nvol ves r eckl es s orcal l ous i ndi ffe r ence t o t he fe der al l ypr ot ect ed r i ght s of other s . T he foc us m us tbe on w hetherthe defendant ’ s act i ons cal l fordet err ence and puni s hm entoverand a b o v e t h a tp r o v i d e d b yc o mp e n s a t o rya wa r d s . ” Ha r d e ma n , 3 7 7 F . 3 d a t1 1 2 1 . As w i t h the otherdamages aw ar ds , w e r evi ew t he s uffi ci encyof the evi dence de n o v o , a n d e x a m in e th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t fa v o ra b le to th e p la in tiffs . N i et o v. K apoor , 268 F. 3d 1208, 1221 ( 10th C i r . 2001) . W e not e, how ever , t hatI n t hatcas e, t he pl ai nt i ff’ s fel l ow empl oy ees convi nced tw o A l buquer que 21 pol i ce offi cer s t o conducta mock ar r es tof pl ai nt i ff a s a pr act i cal j oke. I d. at 1201- 02. 47 w e a re w ith o u t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s v ie w s o n th e m a tte r. N evert hel es s , w e ar e s at i s fi ed thata r eas onabl e j ur orcoul d concl ude that Fr i t z and Fogart yact ed w i t h “r eckl es s orcal l ous i ndi ffe r ence , ” i f not“evi l m ot i ve o r i n te n t,” to th e ri g h ts o f th e d e fe n d a n ts . H a rd e m a n , 3 7 7 F .3 d a t 1 1 2 1 . P lain tiffs m e t w ith p e rsis ten t h o stilityf ro m F ritz a n d F o g a rty , an d w e re su bjec t to a w id e v a rie tyo f

inju rie s in re talia tio n fo r th e ir p o lit ica l ac tiv iti e s. A re a so n a b le ju ro r c o u ld c o n c lu d e , b a se d o n th e e v id e n c e b e fo re it, th a t F o g a rtya n d F ritz w a n ted to sile n c e m e m b e rs o f th e A ss o c iatio n , w e re e m b a rra ss e d b yth e ir l obby i ng effor t s , and ac t ed t o s t arve them of M edi cai d fundi ng i n an effor tt o put t hem out of bus i nes s . T hi s t ype of be havi ori s the s or tthati s pr oper l yans w er ed b yp u n iti v e d a m a g e s, w h ich a c t “to p u n ish w h a t h a s o c c u rre d a n d to d e ter its re p e titio n .” Y o u re n v . T in tic S c h . D is t., 3 4 3 F .3 d 1 2 9 6 , 1 3 0 9 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). A l t hough defe ndant s ci t e t o Fuer s chbac h v. Sout hw es tA i r l i nes C o. , 439 F. 3d 1 1 9 7 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) a s a n a lo g o u s to th e fa c ts a t is s u e h e re , w e a re u n c o n v in c e d . D e fe n d a n ts c o n d u c t in th a t c a s e , w h ic h w e d e s c ri b e d a s a “jo k e g o n e b a d ,” 21 s e e i d . 1 2 0 0 , i s a fa rc r yf r o m d e fe n d a n t s ’ c o n d u c ti n t h i s c a s e . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we re in sta te th e p u n iti v e d a m a g e s a w a rd e d a t th e first tria l ag a in st F o g a rtya n d F ritz i n fav or of all plai nti ffs.48 C F inally , w e re v iew w h ethe r th e e v iden ce w as su ffici en t t o su p p o rtthe ju ry ’s aw ar d of compensa t or ydamages t o the corpor at e pl ai nt i ffs . T hes e damages amount ed t o $24 m i l l i on – $6 m i l l i on t o SO FS, $6 m i l l i on t o M or ni ng St ar , $6 m i l l i on t o R us t l i ng W i nds , $2 m i l l i on t o J C H , $2 m i l l i on t o D FS, and $2 mi l l i on t o Ser eni t ySpr i ngs . A s w i t h t he i ndi vi dual damages , l i abi l i tyw as al l ocat ed on a 60/ 30/ 10 bas i s betw een Fogart y , Fr i t z, and B r ow n. T ot al corpor at e damages , as w ell as th e a ll o ca ti o n o f d am ag es b etw ee n the c o rpo rate p lai n ti ffs, w ere c o n sis ten t w ith p lain tiffs’ c o u n se l’s s u g g e stio n a t clo sin g . T h a t re q u e st w a s itse lf bas ed, l oos el y , on M cD ani el ’ s t es t i m ony . M cD ani el ’ s corpor at e damages c a lcu latio n re p re se n ted : (1 ) th e d iffe re n c e b e tw e e n th e a v e ra g e p e r u n it reim b u rsem en t r ate p aid to the p lai n ti ff p rov iders a n d all o ther p ri v ate p rov iders dur i ng the r el evantper i od, ( 2) m ul t i pl i ed byt he ave r age numberof uni t s bi l l ed by al l pl ai nt i ff pr ovi der s perm ont h, ( 3) m ul t i pl i ed byt he numberof m onths betw een t he begi nni ng of pl ai nt i ffs ’ l obby i ng effor t s and the fi l i ng of the R us t l i ng W i nds law su it, (4 ) p lu s in ter e st. B efor e the di s t r i ctcour t , defe ndant s ar gued thatM cD ani el ’ s cal cul at i ons did not pr ov i de a p l ausi ble es t i m at e of the profit s l ostas a r esul tof d efen dan t s’ r et al i at i on. T hi s pr eci s e i s s ue w as att he hea r tof the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s j us t i fi cat i on fo r g ra n tin g a n e w trial: “ H e re , p lain tiffs m a d e n o e ffo rt to q u a n tifyth e e c o n o m ic lo ss e s o f

e a c h c o rp o ra te p lain tiff.” E v a n s v . F o g a rty , N o . C IV -0 1 -0 2 5 2 -H E , slip49

op. at4 ( W . D . O kl a. A ug. 25, 2003) . W e agr ee thatw hi l e pl ai nt i ffs ’ evi dence w a s s u fficie n t fo r a ju ryto f in d liab ili tyfo r th e c o rp o ra te p lain tiffs a g a in st F ritz a n d F o g a rty , the ir o ffe rin g o f p ro o f a s to th e c o rp o ra te d a m a g e s w a s w o e f u lly in su fficie n t. M o re o v e r, w e a g re e w ith th e d istric t co u rt th a t re m itt itu r is i nappr opr i at e as t o t he corpor at e damages , “ther e bei ng no appar entbas i s i n the e v id e n c e fo r s e ttin g s o m e le s s e r a m o u n t o f d a m a g e s .” Id . a t 9 . R e c o g n izin g th a t th e re h a v e a lre a d yb e e n tw o trials a d d re ss in g d a m a g e s in t hi s cas e, w e neve r t hel es s concl ude w i th gr eatr el uct ance thata thi r d tr i al on damages i s nece s s ary . G i ven thatthe j ur i es i n the fi r s tand s econd tr i al s r eac hed di ffe r entconcl us i ons as t o defe ndant s ’ l i abi l i tyand as t o w hi ch pl ai nt i ffs p re v a iled , the c o rp o ra te d a m a g e s a w a rd s f ro m th e se c o n d trial a re n o t ap p lica b le t o t he fi r s t . See W i l s on v. B ur l i ngt on N . R . R . C o. , 804 F. 2d 607 ( 10th C i r . 1986) (rev ersing g ran t of

n ew tr ial an d reinstati n g firstjury ’s ve rdict w h ere sec o n d jury r eac hed di ffe r entconcl us i ons as t o l i abi l i tyof part i es ) ; D i amond S hamroc k C orp. v . Z ink e & T rum b o , L td., 7 9 1 F . 2 d 1 4 1 6 (10 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ) (r eins tat ing firstjury ’s v e rd ict w h e re p re v a ili n g p a rties d iffe re d ). W e th e re fo re e x e rc ise o u r a u th o rityto or dera new t r i al l i m i t ed s ol el yt o corpor at e damages . See M al andr i s , 703 F. 2d at 1168. Pl ai nt i ffs ’ ar gum ent s i n favorof r ei ns t at ementof the corpor at e damages a wa r d s a r e u n p e r s u a s i v e . T h e yc o rr e c t l yi d e n t i f yp r e c e d e n te s t a b l i s h i n g th a twe d o n o t d e m a n d p re c is io n in o u r r e v ie w o f a ju ry’s a w a rd fo r e c o n o m ic d a m a g e s .50

See, e. g. , B i t l erv. A . O . Sm i t h C orp. , 400 F. 3d 1227, 1242 ( 10th C i r . 2004) (u p h o ld in g a n a w a rd fo r f u tu re m e d ica l ex p e n se s th a t w a s “ n o t b a se d o n sp e c ific an d su b stan ti al ev iden ce ”); F iedler v . M cK ea C o rp., 6 0 5 F . 2 d 5 4 2 , 5 4 7 (10 th C ir . 1 9 7 9 ) (“ [ M ]a th e m a tica l ex a c tn e ss is n o t re q u ire d .”). Y e t M c D a n iel’s e c o n o m ic l o s s c a l c u l a t i o n w a s n o ts i m p l y i m p r e c i s e – r a th e r , i th a d th e a i ro f fa n t a s y. W e r eemphas i ze that“[t ] he purpos e of § 1983 da m ages i s t o pr ovi de c o mp e n s a t i o n fo ri nj u r i e s c a u s e d b yth e v i o l a t i o n o f a p l a i n t i ff ’ s l e g a l r i g h t s . No compensa t or ydamages m aybe aw ar ded abs entpr oof of a ctual i nj ury . ” J ol i vetv. D el and, 966 F. 2d 573, 576 ( 10t h C i r . 1992) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . “A l though damages forl os tbus i nes s oppor tuni t i es need notbe s uppor t ed bym athemat i cal cert ai nt y , t heym us tbe bas ed on r eas onabl e pr oof. A m ount s thatar e s pecul at i ve, re m o te , im a g in a ry, o r i m p o s s ib le o f a s c e rt a in m e n t a re n o t r e c o v e ra b le .” Fi t zger al d, 68 F. 3d at1264 ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . I n or derfora j ur ort o acc ept M cD aniel ’s l ostprofi t s cal culat i on , she w ou l d h ave to m ake a seri es of o utl and i sh as s um pt i ons t hatfi nd l i t t l e s uppor ti n the r ecor d. N amel y , s he w oul d have t o fi nd notm er el yt hatt he di s par i t yevi dence w as s uffi ci entt o s how r et al i at i on, butthat i tacc ur at el yr epr es ent ed the degr ee of i nj ur yt o the corpor at e pr ovi der s ( i . e. , that pr ovi der s s ervi ced i dent i cal pat i entpopul at i ons and thatno di s par i tyexi s t ed pr i or t o 1999) . I n addi t i on, s he w oul d have t o fi nd t hatthe r ei m bur s ementgap cons t i tut ed pur e l os tpr ofi tt o everycorpor at e pl ai nt i ff – i n ot herw or ds , s he w oul d have t o fi nd t hatcorpor at e pl ai nt i ffs di d nots cal e bac k thei roper at i ons at51

al l due t o r educe d appr oval s . Fi nal l y , s he w oul d have t o fi nd t hatthe al l ocat i on b e tw e e n c o rp o ra te p ro v id e rs a c c u ra te ly re fle c te d th e lo s t p ro fits a s to e a c h . A l t ho ug h ther e w ere a few bit s of ev i den ce i n the r ecord t hat s po ke to these q u e stio n s, th e yw e re n o t su fficie n t to re n d e r M c D a n iel’s e c o n o m ic lo ss e stim a te anyt hi ng but“s pecul at i ve, r emot e, i m agi nary , ori m pos s i bl e of a s cert ai nm ent . ” I d. A ccor di ngl y , a new t r i al i s r equi r ed t o as cert ai n the appr opr i at e meas ur e of d am ag es a s to e ac h co rpo rate p rov ider. V A fter en teri n g jud g m en t fo ll o w ing the s ec o n d tr ial , the d istri ct co u rt a w a rd e d a tto rn e yfe e s a n d c o s ts to c e rt a in p la in tiffs a g a in s t F o g a rt ya n d B ro w n . A l l par t i es now appea l t hataw ar d. A s di s cus s ed atl ength s upr a, w e have con cl ud ed thatt he d i stri ctcou rtabu sed i t s di scr et i on i n g rant i ng defe nd ants ’ m o tio n fo r a n e w trial, a n d h a v e re in sta ted th e v e rd ict f ro m th e first tria l as to Fr i t z and Fogart y . T hatr ei ns t at ed ver di ctdi ffe r s s ubs t ant i al l yfr om t he j udgm ent en tered fo ll o w ing the s ec o n d tr ial w ith resp ec t t o b o th li ab il ityan d d am ag es. In par t i cul ar , w e have di s m i s s ed al l cl ai m s agai ns tB r ow n, s uch thatN eal and N ancy T h ri f t a re n o lo n g e r p re v a ilin g p a rt ie s a g a in s t h e r p u rs u a n t to 4 2 U .S .C . § 1988( b) . G i ven thes e di s cr epanc i es , w e conc l ude thatr econs i der at i on of the fe e a w a rd is n e c e ss a ry , an d th a t itw o u ld u n d u lyp reju d ice th e p a rties if w e w e re to deci de the fe e appe al s on t hei rm er i t s . See W i l l i ams v. T r aderPubl ’ g C o. , 218 F. 3d 481, 488 ( 5t h C i r . 2000) ( vaca t i ng and r emandi ng att orney s ’ fee s w hen52

r ever s al of puni t i ve damages r educe d t ot al j udgm entbyappr oxi m at el y40 per cent ) ; C opperv. C i t yof Far go, 184 F. 3d 994, 998 ( 8th C i r . 1999) ( enfor ci ng j ud gm ent r end ered i n fir stt ri al and rem and i ng for determ i nati on of att orney s’ fee s ) ; B unch v. B ul l ar d, 795 F. 2d 384, 399- 400 ( 5th C i r . 1986) ( vaca t i ng and r emandi ng w hen courtr ever s ed j udgm entas t o cert ai n pr evai l i ng pl ai nt i ffs ) ; cf. O ’ R our ke v. C i t yof Pr ovi dence , 235 F. 3d 713 ( 1s tC i r . 2001) ( r ei ns t at i ng ver di ct fr om fi r s tt r i al butuphol di ng aw ar d of att orney s ’ fee s fr om s econd tr i al w hen s i n g l e p l a i n t i ff

p r e v a i l e d a g a i n s td e fe n d a n ti n b o th tr i a l s ) . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we vaca t e the aw ar d and r emand t o t he di s tr i ctcour tfora det erm i nat i on of a p p ro p ri a te fe e s in lig h t o f o u r p a rt ia l r e in s ta te m e n t o f th e fir s t tr ia l v e rd ic t. VI W e R EV ER SE th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s g ra n t o f a n e w tr ia l, REI NST ATE the fi r s ttr i al ver di ctas t o defe ndant s Fr i t z and Fogarty , and RE M AND forr emi t t i tur o f c ertain ind ividu al da m ag es a w ard ed at th e fir st tri al as d esc ri b ed in P art IV s upr a. W e RE M AND th e c o rp o ra te d a m a g e s a w a rd s fo r a n e w trial lim ited so lely t o damages . W e R EV ER SE t h e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f J M OL t o Br o wn fol l ow i ng t he fi r s tt r i al , and RE M AND w i th i ns truct i ons t o D I SM I SS . W e al so R EV ER SE th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s a w a rd o f p a rt ia l fe e s a n d c o s ts u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1988( b) and RE M AND for r econ si derat i on of the aw ard i n acco rdance w i th thi s53

di s pos i t i on. A l l pendi ng m ot i ons ar e DENI ED . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT C arlos F . L u ce ro C i r cui tJ udge