FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB RUARY 11, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Nos . 09 -1 53 77 & 0 9- 16 42 4

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 00 56 8- CV-T-2 7- TBM KIRTSEN KISSINGER- CAMP BELL, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us C. RANDALL HARRELL, M.D., P.A., C. RANDALL HARRELL, M.D., Defen da nt s- App el lant s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Feb ru ary 11 , 20 11 )
Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg e. *

__ __ __ __ __ _ * Although United States District J udg e David H. Coar of the Norther n District of I llinois sat by designation in this case, he r etired a s an Article I I IJ udg e in Dec ember 2010. Acc ording ly , we de cide this ca se by

a quorum. See 11th Cir. R. 34-2.PER CURI AM:

C. Ran da ll Harrel l, M.D., P.A. (“ The Fo un ta inof Yo ut h” ) an d C . Ran da ll Harre ll , M.D., app eal fro m two di st ric t co urt o rd ers de nyin g t he ir r en ewedm ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of law an d t he ir r eque stfora ne w tri al , fol lo win g ajury
ve rd ic t fo r Pl ai nt iff

, Kirt se n Ki ss si ng er-C am pb el l o n acla im

of t orti ou s in te rfer en ce. Be cau se we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in di sm is si ng th es e m ot io ns , we affi rm . Defen dant s ra is e a b ev y

of c la im s i n t he ir app eal . They beg in by argu in g th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin no t g ran ti ng th em jud gm en t as a m atte r of

law be cau se th ere was no ev id en ti ary ba si s fo r th e v erd ic t attri al . Next , th ey reque sta
ne w tri al onth e g ro un d t ha t p reju di ci al he ars ay was wro ng ly adm it te d. Def en da nt s th enco nt en d t ha t t he jury’ s awa rdforem ot io na l d is tre ss sh ou ldbe st ru ckbe cau se th e al le ge d d am ag es lac ke d acau sa l co nn ect io n wi th Pla in ti ff’s cl ai m an d b ecau se itis in co ns is te ntwith t he da m ag es awardforth e g en eral to rt c la im forin te nt io na l in te rfer en ce. Fi na ll y , Defen da nt s cl ai m th atth ei r Ru le 60 (b )(2 ) an d R ul e 6 0( b) (3 )
m ot io ns sh ou ldha ve be engra nt edbe cau se ne wly di sc ov eredev id en ce de m on st rat es th atth e jud gm en t attri al was l ik el y in accu rat e an d t ha t Pl ai nt iff
co m m it te d afrau d o n t he co urt, wh ic h d en ie d Def en da nt s anop po rtu ni ty to

2co nduc t a f

ul l an d fa ir t ria l. Fo r th e fo ll owi ng reas on s, we b el ie ve th atth es e cl ai m s la ckm eri t. I. FACTS Defen da nt , C. Ran da ll Harrel l, M.D., is a reg is te redco sm et ic su rg eo n i n t he Pal m Harb or , Flo rid a are a an d d ire ct s h is own pra ct ic e, The Fo un ta in of Yo ut h In st itut e. The do ct oran d h is pra ct ic e are bo th de fen da nt s i n t hi s s ui t. Pl ai nt iff , Kirt st enKis si ng er-C am

pb el l wen t t o wo rkforDefen da ntas a n i m ag e co ns ul ta nt
an d a ss is ta ntoff

ic e m an ag er s om et im e in Sep te m be r orOcto be r of

20 05 . As an im ag e co ns ul ta nt , Kis si ng er-C am pb el l’s p rimary

res po ns ib il it y

was i n s al es . She
wou ldm eetwith p ro sp ect iv e cl ie nt s an d d is cu ss with t he m th ei r op ti on s as to
se rv ic es pe rfo rm edby H arre ll . Kis si ng er-C am pb el l’s co m

pe ns at io n c on si st edof a ba se sal ary an d am on th ly bon us . Duri ng he r te nu re atth e Fo un ta in of Yo ut h, Kis si ng er-C am

pb el l al so accu m

ul at edso m e m an ag eri al res po ns ib il it ie s i n t he of fic e. At the be gi nn in g o f 20 07 , Harrel l d idno t awa rdKis si ng er-C am pb el l h er
m on th ly sale s b on us es forth e m on th s o f Ja nu ary orFeb ru ary aft er an no un ci ng th at th e b on us form

ul a wou ldbe ch an ge d fo r bo th he r an d h er s up erv is or , Sco tt McC au le y . McCaul ey ’s bo nu s u lt im at el y in crea se d wh il e Kis si ng er-C am pb el l’s de crea se d.

3Pri orto Pla in ti ff’s b eg in ni ng em pl oym en t wi th Harrel l, Defe nd an ts form eda bu si ne ss rel at io ns hi p wi th My Ch oi ce M ed ic al , Inc ., (“ My Ch oi ce”) a refe rral
so ur ce an d fi na nc in g a ge ntfor co sm et ic su rg ery pa ti en ts . At so m e p oi ntin 20 04 or 20 05 , Harrel l an d M y

Ch oi ce en te redin to a bu si ne ss rel at io ns hi p wh ereb y My Ch oi ce re ferr edcli en ts to Harel l. Th is rel at io ns hi p app ears to ha ve be ensetforth in writ in g i n aco nt ractbe twee n M y Ch oi ce an d P en n P la st ic Su rg ery of Pen ns y lv an ia , a co m

pa ny someho w ass oc ia te d wi th The Fo un ta in of Yo ut h. M y Ch oi ce h adit s o wn i m ag e co ns ul ta nt s, s o Ki ss in ge r-Ca m pb el l h adno rol e in br in gi ng in cu st om ers who were re ferr edby the co m pa ny. By th e b eg in ni ng of 20 07 , referral s fr om

My Ch oi ce were be co m in g an i nc reas in gl y lar ge po rti on of Harre ll ’s cli en te le , m ak in g Ki ss in ge r-Ca m pe ll ’s po si ti on les s i m

po rta nt . InMarc h 2 00 7, Harrel l i nf orm edKis si ng er-C am

pb el l t ha t s he was b ei ng
rem ov edfro m

he r sa le s p os it io n a ndpl acedin th e ro le of r ecep ti on is t. Becaus e 1 Kis si ng er-C am

pb el l d idno t ap pr ov e o f he r ne w po si ti on an d b ecau se sh e d idno t be li ev e th atDefen da nt s wo ul d p ay he r acc ru edbo nu se s, s he de ci de d t o t en de r he r le tt er o f res ig na ti on on Marc h 2 7, 2 00 7. Ki ss in ge r-Ca m pb el l cl ai m s t ha t s he ag reed Plaintiff eventually

sued Ha rre ll on a brea ch of c ontrac t theory in Florida state 1 court be cause of this chang e in employ ment responsibilities. This sui t is ongoingand De fenda nts have attempted to use evidenc e g ather ed as pa rt of its discovery

in that case to assert their c laims for f raud on the court in this case , as discussed be low. Plaintiff also filed suit ag ainst Defe ndants for unpa id overtime. That suit was c ommenced in May 2007, the first of the thr ee la wsuits Pl aintiff filed a g ainst Defe ndant.

4to st ay

on foran ot he r m on thto tra ina rep la cem en t s al es pe rs on , bu t due to ha rs h tre at m en t b y

Harrel l, s he ab rupt ly deci de d t o qui t o n Ap ril 2. Sh ortl y th erea fte r, Kis si ng er-C am

pb el l re cei ve d alet te r fro m Harrel l t ha t t hr eat en edsu itag ai ns t h er. The let te r as se rte d tha t h er wag es mig htbe ga rn is he d due to li be lo us all eg at io ns th atsh e h adm ad e ab ou t t he pra ct ic e. Duri ng th e ear ly m on th s o f 20 07 , Kis si ng er-C am pb el l ex ch an ge d s ev eral
em ai ls with Leann e Green , an i m ag e co ns ul ta ntforMy Ch oi ce, wh o s erv edth e po rti onof t he cli en te le th atwas re ferr edto Harrel l fr om 20 05 to 20 07 . Pla in ti ff
co nt act edGreen aft er h er d em ot io n, b utbe fo re s he lef t Harrel l’s o ffi ce, an d a sk ed he r whe th er s he kn ew of

an y op en in gs inth e fi el d a ndif s he en joy edhe r job at M y Ch oi ce. Gree n s ug ge st edth atKis si ng er-C am pb el l p os si bl y

co m e to workat M y Ch oi ce. Harel l cl ai m s t ha t t hi s co m m un ic at io n was anatt em

pton th e p artof Gre ento
recrui t Ki ss in ge r-Ca m

pb el l awa y

fro m Fo un ta in of Yo ut h a nda po te nt ia l v io la ti on of th e co nt ractbe twee n M y Ch oi ce an d P en n P la st ic Su rg ery. He be li ev edth atth is
co nt ractap pl ie d t o h is pra ct ic e an d t ha t a c on fid en ti al it y claus e in th e ag reem en t pr ev en te d t he recrui ti ng of c urren t em pl oyees fr om

on e co m pa ny to t he ot he r. Kis si ng er-C am

pb el l’s ac co un t i s t ha t t he co nv ers at io n was jus t a c as ua l d is cu ss io n

5th atsh e in it ia te d b ecau se sh e was un happ y with h er job an d e xp lo rin g h er
em pl oym en t o pt io ns . Afte r he r res ig na ti on , Kis si ng er-C am pb el l l earn edth atMy

Ch oi ce was in te res te d i n h iri ng a ne w em pl oyee to co ve r th e Fl or id a are a, an d s he ap pl ie d fo r th e p os it io n. Harr el l l earn edof t he em ai l co rres po nd en ce b etweenKis si ng erCam pb el l an d Gre enonApri l 1 6, 2 00 7. He i m m ed ia te ly con ta ct edVin ce Trap os so , anoff ic er atMy

Ch oi ce, an d i nf

orm edhi m

of h is be li ef tha t M y

Ch oi ce was in vi ol at io n o f th e ag reem en t. Acco rd in g t o t he Defen da nt s, the co nt ractha s v ery br oa d l an gu ag e co nc ern in g the us e o f pr op rie tary in fo rm at io n. Pl ai nt iff

cla im s t ha t th e co nt ractin qu es ti on ha d n o b eari ng onwhet he r My Ch oi ce co ul d h ire he r an d th atitco ul d n otbe m is ta ke n a s h av in g s uc h apro vi si on . Defen da nt s ar gu e th atth e
co nt ract ’s bro adco nf

id en ti al it y

claus e wou ldat l eas t p recl ud e My Cho ic e fro m hi rin g away

an y of the curren t em

pl oyees o f th e Fo un ta in of Yo ut h. Harrel l te st ifi edth athe sp ok e to Trap as so ab ou t t he co nt ractbe cau se he was c on cern ed th atGreen m ay

ha ve vi ol at edth e co nt ractan d h e wan te d t o e ns ur e th atsu ch act io ns were av oi de d i n t he futur e. My Ch oi ce d idno t h ire Pla in ti ff i n Ap ril 20 07 , th ou gh itev en tu al ly hire d h er i n Au gu stof tha t year. W he n M y Ch oi ce d idhi re pl ai nt iff , itwas fo r an ot he r po si ti on co ve rin g Nas hv il le an d New Orl ean s, ra th er th anFlo rid a. 6Trap as so was t he ul ti m at e d eci si on -m ak er o n M y Ch oi ce’s h um anres ou rces de ci si on s an d was res po ns ib le forth e o rig in al de ci si on no t t o h ire Kis si ng erCam pb el l. Do ni el le DiTo taserve d u nd er Trap as so an d re la y edhi s d eci si on to Pl ai nt iff . She tes ti fie d t ha t i t was he r un de rs ta nd in g t ha t Ki ss in ge r-Ca m pb el l was
no t h ire d i n Ap ril 20 07 be cau se of t he ph on e co nv ers at io n b etweenHarrel l an d Trap as so . Kis si ng er al so in te rv ie wedwith M ed i-Weig htLos s (“ Med i-Weig ht ”) i n S t. Pet ers bu rg , Flo rid a. Pl ai nt iff tes ti fie d t ha t t he in te rv ie w to okpl ace abo ut“ th e th ird weekof M ay ” an d t ha t s he be li ev edth atsh e h adat l eas t o ne ot he r in te rv ie w with Dr. Zbel la , th e o wne r of

th e fra nc hi se , po ss ib ly by ph on e. Afte r th e in te rv ie w, Kis si ng er-C am

pb el l d is co nt inue d h er job sea rch . Howev er, s he di d n otge t a jo b wit h M ed i-Weig htan d re su m edsea rch in g fo r em pl oym en t i n m id -J un e 2 00 7. EvaGam aras , form erl y

a cl os e fri en d o f Kis si ng er-C am be ll ’s anda su rg ic al te ch ni ci anem

pl oyed b y Harrel l, t es ti fie d t ha t s he ha d aco nv ers at io n wi th Harrel l
aro un d J anua ry

of 2 00 8 i n wh ic h h e sa idth athe ha d e ns ur edth atKis si ng erCam pb el l wo ul d n otge t t he job at M ed i-Weig ht . Harrel l al so ask edGam aras to rel ay a m es sa ge fro m

hi m an d h is wife th atth ey

want edto m eetwith Ki ss in ge rCam pb el l t o d is cu ss a res ol ut io n t o t he laws ui t. Pl ai nt iff de cl in edth e o pp ortu ni ty to
m eetwith Harrel l, t el li ng Gam aras th atsh e fea redHarrel l b ecau se he was
7th reat en in g t o c ou nt er-s ue for$2 50 ,00 0. Harrel l was , all eg ed ly, fu rio us th at

Kis si ng er-C am

pb el l h adrefu se d t hi s i nv it at io n. InMay 200 7, Ki ss in ge r-Ca m pb el l fi le d s ui t fo r no n- pa ym en t o f ov ert im e, pu rs ua ntto th e Fai r Lab orSta nd ard s Act(“ FLSA”), 2 9 U.S.C. § 20 1 e t s eq . On Feb ru ary 29 , 20 08 , Pla in ti ff fi le d t he co m pl ai ntin th e in st an t ca se in Flo rid a st at e
co urt. Th e co m

pl ai ntall eg edth atDefen da nt s re ta li at edag ai ns t h er fo r th e fi li ng of th e ear li er l aws ui t b y

in te rfer in g wi th he r atte m pt s t o o bt ai n ane w job in th e
m ed ic al fie ld . She bro ug htcla im s fo r ret al ia ti on invi ol at io n o f th e FLSA an d t he Fl or id a Whis tl e-b lo wer’s Act , as wel l as a cl ai m forto rti ou s i nt erfe ren ce. Defen da nt s s uc ces sf

ul ly rem ov edth e cas e to th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a sh ortl y th erea fte r. The Di st ric t Co urt fo un d t ha t i t ha d ju ris di ct io n o n t he ba si s o f th e FLSA cl ai m . On J un e 5 , 20 09 , th e jury retu rn eda ve rd ic t wh ic h fo un d fo r th e Pl ai nt iff on th e g ro un d o f to rti ou s i nt erfe ren ce b utfou ndforth e Defen da nt s o n t he ret al ia ti on cl ai m s, u nd er b ot h t he FLSA an d t he Flo rid a Whis tl e-b lo wer’s Act . Defen da nt s fil edsev eral m ot io ns forjud gm en t as a m at te r of law o r, al te rn at iv el y , for

a ne w tri al . Inc lu de d i n t he fin al m ot io n was ev id en ce g athe redfro m de po si ti on s o f Dr. Zbe ll a an d h is off

ic e m an ag er atMed i-Weig ht , Sha ro n DeLu ca, wh ic h wer e ta ke n

8in a subs eque ntcas e in Flo rid a st at e co urt. Th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d Def en dant s’
m ot io ns . II. DISCUS SION A. Defen da nt s’ cla im

th atth e ev id en ce p res en te d was in su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt t he jury’ s v erd ic t o n the cla im of t orti ou s i nt erfe ren ce o r, inth e al te rn at iv e, th at Harre ll ’s act io ns were p riv il eg ed Defen da nt s as se rt t ha t n o re as on ab le jury co ul d h av e co nc lu de d t ha t t he y to rti ou sl y in te rfer edwith Ki ss in ge r-Ca m pb el l’s at te m

pt s t o o bt ai n e m

pl oym en t wit h M y Ch oi ce o r Med i-Weig ht . Howev er, the di st ric t co urt l ai d o uta subs ta nt ia l
se t o f fac ts pre se nt edwith re sp ectto each job , on th e b as is of wh ic h t he jury co ul d ha ve co nc lu de d tha t Ki ss in ge r-Ca m pb el l es tabl is he d abu si ne ss rel at io ns hi p wi th each em pl oyer th atDefen da nt s t orti ou sl y in te rfer edwith. Und er Fl or id a la w, th e el em en ts of acla im for to rti ou s i nt erfe ren ce ar e: “ (1 ) th e ex is te nc e o f a b us in es s re la ti on sh ip , no t n eces sa ril y ev id en cedby an
en fo rceabl e co nt ract ; (2 ) kn owl ed ge of t he rel at io ns hi p o n t he pa rt o f th e de fen da nt ; (3 ) anin te nt io na l an d u nju st ifi edin te rfer en ce wi thth e rel at io ns hi p b y th e d efen da nt ; an d (4 ) da m ag e to th e p la in ti ff as a res ul t o f th e b reac h o f th e rel at io ns hi p.” Tam ia m i Trai l To ur s, In c. v. Co tt on , 46 3 S o.2 d 1 12 6, 1 12 7 (F la
. 19 85 ); KM S Res taur an t Co rp . v. Wendy 's In t'l , Inc ., 36 1 F .3d13 21 , 13 25 (11 th Cir
. 920 04 ). Defen da nt s’ su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce ch al le ng es foc us on th e fi rs t el em en t. With res pe ctto th atfir stele m en t, “ A pro te ct edbu si ne ss rel at io ns hi p n eed
no t b e ev id en cedby an en fo rceabl e co nt ract . Howev er, ‘the all eg edbu si ne ss rel at io ns hi p m

us t af fo rdth e p la in ti ff ex is ti ng or p ro sp ect iv e le ga l o r co nt ractua l rig ht s.’ ” Gos sa rdv. Ad iaServ ic es , Inc ., 72 3 S o.2 d 1 82 , 18 4 (F la . 19 98 ) (quo ti ng Reg is te r v. Pi erce , 53 0 S o.2 d 9 90 , 99 3 (F la . App . 1s t Di st . 19 88 )). “ The tes t i s whe th er the re was ‘ anun de rs ta nd in g b etweenth e p art ie s [wh ic h] wou ldhave be en
co m pl et edha d t he de fen da ntno t i nt erfe red .’ ” St . Jo hn ’s Riv er Mg m t. v . Fernbe rg Geo lo gi cal , 78 4 S o.2 d 5 00 , 50 5 (F la . App . 5 th 2 00 1) (qu ot in g Etha n Al le n, In c. v. Geo rg et own Man or , Inc ., 64 7 S o.2 d 8 12 , 81 4 (F la . 19 94 )). As t o t he My

Ch oi ce job , th e d is tri ctco urt m ad e th e fo ll owi ng fin di ng s: (1 ) Dur in g he r em

pl oym en t wit h Defen da nt s, Pl ai nt iff was a po in t of co nt act be twee n Defen da nt s an d My Ch oi ce an d worke d cl os el y with rep res e n t a t i v e s of My Ch oi ce; (2 ) in Apr il , 2 00 7, sh ortl y aft er Pl ai nt iff le ft Defen da nt s’ em

pl oym en t, Le e an n Green (a rep res en ta ti ve of My Ch oi ce in Fl or id a who res ig ne d aro un d th e ti m e th at Pl ai nt iff be ga n her se arch fo r a ne w job ) reco m m e n d e d P l ai nt iff to Don ie ll e DiTo ta (My Ch oi ce’s of

fic e m an ag er) fo r a p os it io n as a My Ch oi ce rep res en ta ti ve ; (3 ) Pl ai nt iff cal le d DiTo ta to ex pr es s he r in te res t in em pl oym en t as a My Ch oi ce rep res en ta ti ve in Fl or id a an d subm it te d a res um e, whi ch “ ki nd of go t th in gs m ov in g” ; (4 ) DiTo ta , who de sc rib ed th is pe rio d as on e “ whe n we were tryin g to hi re [Pl ai nt i f f ], ” p as se d on Pl ai nt iff’s res um e to My Ch oi ce’s hu m an res ou rces de pa rtment or to he r bo ss Vin ce Tap os so , who was a p a r t - o wne r (an d pe rh ap s al so he ad of th e hu m an res ou rces de pa rtment) of My Ch oi ce an d was res po ns ib le fo r th e hi rin g de ci si on s; (5 ) in a te le ph on e co nv ers at io n i ni ti at ed by Harre ll (th e ex is te nc e of
10whi ch was co rro bo rat ed to so m e ex te ntby H arre ll ’s tes ti m on y (an d th e te st im on y of Sco tt McAu le y , Defen da nt s’ of fic e adm in is tra to r), Harre ll
“ m ad e it ve ry cl ear, th at em pl oyin g [ P l a i n t i ff] wou ld be br each of co nt ract ”; (6 ) My Ch oi ce de cl in ed to hi re Pl ai nt iff ; (7 ) Harre ll adm it te d to Eva Gam aras , a “ su rg ic al te ch no lo gi st ” at hi s cl in ic , th at he pr ev en te d Pl ai nt iff fro m ob ta in in g em pl oym en t at My Ch oi ce an d Me d i W ei gh t Los s; (8 ) Pl ai nt if

f rece iv ed no res po ns e to he r ap pl ic at io n un ti l a few m on th s la t er whe n DiTo ta ex pl ai ne d to Pl ai nt iff th at My Ch oi ce’s co nt ractua l ob li ga ti on s to Defen da nt s pr ev en te d My Ch oi ce fro m hi rin g Pl ai nt iff ; (9 ) a few m on th s la te r, DiTo ta ag ai n reco m m en de d Pl ai nt iff fo r a po si ti on as a My Ch oi ce rep res en ta ti ve ; an d (1 0) in pa rt a s a res ul t of a ch an ge in own ers hi p at My Ch oi ce, My Cho ic e th en hi red Pl ai nt iff as a My Cho ic e rep res en ta ti ve . Doc . 8 at6– 8. The co urt’s fi nd in gs de m on st rat e th atco ns id erab le cir cum st an ti al ev id en ce
was pre se nt edto th e jury up on whi ch to ba se it s ju dg m en t. Harr el l p oi nt s o utth at Trap as so , th e u lt im at e d eci si on -m ak er i n the de te rm in at io n n otto hi re Ki ss in ge rCam pb el l o rig in al ly, was no t ca ll edto tes ti fy . Howev er, h is tes ti m on y was n ot
ne ces sa ry forth ere t o b e su ffi ci en t ev id en ce fo r a fi nd in g o f to rti ou s i nt erfe ren ce,
as de m on st rat edby the fin di ng s o f th e d is tri ctco urt. Defen da nt s’ con te nt io n t ha t Harrel l was pri vi le ge d t o a ct , with re sp ectto th e My Ch oi ce cl ai m , bea rs li tt le di sc us si on . Defen dant s re fer v ag ue ly to t he co nt ract wit ho utcit in g a ny lan gu ag e initth atwou ldest ab li sh su cha pr iv il eg e. Fu rth erm or e, th ey

off er n o p ro of

th atHarrel l o r Fo un ta in of Yo ut h wer e p art ie s t o th e co nt ract . 11Lik ewis e, th e d is tri ctco urt m ad e ex te ns iv e fi nd in gs of f actrel at in g t o t he Med i-Weig htjob . Agai n, t he se fin di ng s o f fac t d em on st rat edth atsu ffi ci en t ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce ex is te d fo r th e jury to fi ndth atHarrel l t orti ou sl y in te rfer ed
. The fa ct s p res en te d a t t ria l es tabl is he d t ha t Ki ss in ge r-Ca m pb el l h ada 2
se rio us in te rv ie w with Dr. Zb el la . Add it io na ll y , th e te st im on y of Ga m aras th at Harre ll adm it te d t o h er tha t “ pl ai nt iff ha d g ot te n ajob or s he ha d g ot te n ajob at t he Med i-Weig htLos s C li ni c o r was see ki ng a po si ti on th ere, an d he made su re sh e di dn ’t g et it ” was st ro ng ev id en ce. Th is was e vi de nc e o n t he ba si s o f whi ch th e jury
co ul d h av e fo un d tha t Ki ss in ge r-Ca m pb el l ei th er h ada job off

er o r ha d a n
un de rs ta nd in g wi thMed i-Weig htwhi ch wou ldha ve be enco m pl et edha d Harrel l
no t i nt erfe red . On tha t b as is , th e jury cou ldha ve fou ndth atHarrel l p rev en te d Kis si ng er-C am

pb el l fr om

ge tt in g t he job in qu es ti on . Once ag ai n, i t was no t
ne ces sa ry forKis si ng er-C am

pb el l t o e li ci t t es ti m on y

fro m th e p ers on who ul ti m at el y

de ci de d wh ethe r to hi re h er b ecau se su ffi ci en t ev id en ce h adalr eady be en pr es en te d. B. Defen da nt s’ hea rs ay

ch al le ng e

The jury ’s ver dict does not indicate whether they found for Kissinge r-Campbe ll 2 on the basis of one or both jobs. This Court need only find sufficie nt evidence as to one business relationship t o aff

irm. Reg ardle ss, we find that suff icient evidenc e wa s produce d as to both claims. 12Defen da nt s cl ai m th atKis si ng er-C am

pb el l’s t es ti m on y

th atsh e “ was
ex ci te d” was h ears ay

be cau se itwas a n i m

pl ie d a ss ert io n; m ean in g tha t t he st at em en t i nd ic at edth atZbel lato ldhe r so m ethi ng to m ak e h er b el ie ve th atsh e h ad go tt enth e job . W e d ecl in e to reac h the is su e o f whe th er s uc h a n i m pl ie d a ss ert io n is in adm is si bl e b ecau se we fin d tha t, ev enif t he re were erro r, th e err orwas ha rm le ss . At le as t fo urreas on s s up po rt o ur co nc lu si on . Fi rs t, the im

pl ie d a ss ert io n i s ex tre m el y weak . Altho ug h t he re co ul d b e an im pl ic at io n t ha t Dr. Zb el lasai d s om ethi ng to m ak e p la in ti ff thi nksh e h adanoff er, a st ro ng er i nf

eren ce i s t ha t p la in ti ff s im pl y fel t co nf id en t b ecau se sh e fel t am pl y qu al ifi edan d b ecau se sh e an d t he job were s uc h ago odfit . The jury co ul d h av e
un de rs to odth e st at em en t t o m eanso m ethi ng en ti rel y di ffer en t fr om

what Defen da nt s co nt en d i t was m ean t t o c on ve y . Seco nd , th e im

pl ie dl y ass ert edin fere nc e is als o wea k b ecau se pre ci se ly the
sa m e im pl ic at io n was alr eady

be fo re the jury in th e fo rm of p la in ti ff’s te st im on y th atsh e in te rrupt edhe r job sea rch be cau se sh e was co nf id en t o f ge tt in g t ha t jo b. Defen da nt s d o n otall eg e th athe r te st im on y reg ard in g h er job sea rch was h ears ay . Eve n i f th e ch al le ng edtes ti m on y ha d n otbe enadm it te d, t he re i s s ti ll ev id en ce tha t Pl ai nt iff be li ev edth atsh e h adgo tt enth e job
.

13Thi rd , th e d is tri ctco urt ex pr es sl y to ldth e wit ne ss inth e p res en ce o f th e jury,
an d c on te m

po ran eo us with t hi s t es ti m on y , th atth e wit ne ss was n otsupp os edto rep ort wh atDr. Zbel lasai d. Thus , th e jury was cl earl y aware t ha t i t was in ap pr op ria te forPla in ti ff t o re po rt anyth in g t ha t was di sc us se d i n t he in te rv ie w wit h Zb el la . In o rd er fo r th e jury to h av e as su m edth atth e te st im on y rep res en te d wha t Dr. Zb el lasai d, i t wo ul d h av e h adto di sr eg ardth e jud ge ’s in st ru ct io n. Th e la w pre su m es th atjuri es fol lo w th e in st ru ct io ns of t he jud ge . Fi na ll y , th ere was st ro ng ev id en ce tha t Harrel l h adin factin te rfer edwith Pl ai nt iff , andha d h im se lf tho ug htth atPla in ti ff ei th er h adanoff er o r was so clo se to ob ta in in g a n o fferth atitwas h is cal l wh ic h p rev en te d h er fro m ge tt in g t he job
. Gam aras ’s tes ti m on y

was s uf fic ie nt ly stro ng th atth e weakin fere nc e as se rte d b y Harre ll pa le s i nt o i ns ig ni fic an ce. Inli gh t o f th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, i f th e ev id en ce was erro ne ou sl y adm it te d, th enth aterro r was harm le ss . 3 C. Defen da nt s’ cha ll en ge s t o t he $3 5,0 00 m en ta l o r em ot io na l d am ag es Defen da nt s’ cla im

th atth e em ot io na l d am ag es all eg ed ly suf fere d b y Kis si ng er-C am

pb el l wer e n on -co m

pe ns at ory is fri vo lo us . The d is tri ctco urt

It should be noted that the testimony in question is only

rele vant to the Medi- 3 Weight cla im. Even if this evidence had bee n excluded, it would not have af fec ted the jury ’s deliberation with respect to the My Choice cla im.

14co rrec tl y

rul edth atHarrel l wai ve d t hi s cl ai m by notass ert in g i t i n h is rul e 5 0( a)
m ot io n. Def

en dant s ci te Peerv. Lewi s, No . 06 -6 01 46 -CIV, 2 00 8 WL 20 47 97 8, at *1 1 (S .D. Fla. Ma y

13 , 20 08 ), fo r th e p ro po si ti on th ata da m ag es awardm ay be
m od ifi edev enif i t i s n otob jecte d t o i n aRu le 50 (a) m ot io n. Ho wev er, tha t ca se in vo lv edanawardof m on et ary co m pe ns at io n t o acan di da te who lo stanele ct io n; a
m at te r th e co urt d eem eda cl ear v io la ti on of l aw. Id . The i ns ta ntcla im is on e o f in su ffi ci en cy

of t he ev id en ce; a type o f cl ai m sp eci fic al ly dis ti ng ui sh edby the Peer
co urt. Id . (“ The is su e h ere i s n oton e o f su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce. Itis a pu rel y le ga l i ss ue : wh ethe r a p art y canreco ve r to rt d am ag es on th e p rem is e th athe or s he
wou ldha ve won anele ct io n b utforth e d efen da nt ’s to rti ou s co nduc t.”) Becaus e Defen da nt s d idno t i nc lu de th is cla im in th ei r or ig in al m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a
m at te r of law, i t was waiv ed
. 4 Add it io na ll y , Harrel l’s cl ai m th atth is awardwas dup li cat iv e la ck s m eri t. Harre ll fai ls to m ak e an y

sp eci fic arg um en ts as t o wh y th e d am ag es awardwas dupl ic at iv e o r ho w th e awardrep res en te d awin df al l t o Ki ss in ge r-Cam

pb el l. Th ere is si m pl y no ev id en ce tha t t he jury’ s awa rdwas i m pr op er.

The district cour

t was also cor

rec t in rejec ting this claim on the merits. Harre ll offer s no 4 argument for why

the damag es in this case should be de emed ove rly remote. The re is suff

icient evidenc e in this case to support the jur y ’s deter mination that Harre ll caused Kissinger -Campbell signific ant mental or e motional damag e. Thus, ther e is no nee d for discussion of whe ther Def endants de monstrate plain er ror. 15D. Defen da nt s n ewly dis co ve redev id en ce an d fr au d c la im s

Defen da nt s co nt en d t ha t t he Dis tri ctCo urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y no t gr an ti ng a ne w tri al on th e b as is of n ewly dis co ve redev id en ce, u nd er Ru le 60 (b )(2 ). A m ot io n s eek in g re li ef u nd er 6 0( b) (2 ), ba se d o n n ewly dis co ve red
ev id en ce, requi res all of t he fol lo win g: (1) th e ev id en ce m us t b e n ewly dis co ve red si nc e th e tr ia l; (2) th e m ov an t m us t h av e ex erci se d due di li ge nc e in di sc ov eri ng th e
ne w evi de nc e; (3) th e ev id en ce ca nn otbe m erel y cu m ul at iv e o r im

pe ach in g; (4) th e
ev id en ce m

us t b e m at eri al ; an d (5 ) th e n ew ev id en ce m us t b e su ch th atitwou ld pr oduc e a d iff

eren t o ut co m e in th e und erl y in g a ct io n. Wadd el l v . Hend ry Co un ty Sh eri ff's Offic e, 32 9 F .3d13 00 , 13 09 (11 thCir . 20 03 ); To ol e v . Bax te r Heal th care Co rp ., 23 5 F .3d13 07 , 13 16 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Rev ie w of aco urt’s d eci si on to de ny
a m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l o n t he ba si s o f Ru le 60 (b )(2 ) is scrut in iz edforab us e o f di sc ret io n. To ol e, 23 5 F .3dat 1 31 6. As a p rel im in ary m atte r, th is cla im m ay ve ry well ha ve be enwaiv edby Defen da nt s’ fai lu re t o a ss erta cl ai m un de r Ru le 60 (b )(2 ) to th e co urt b el ow, tho ug h th ey di d a ss erta si m il ar cl ai m un de r Ru le 59 . Reg ard le ss , th e cl ai m lac ks m eri t be cau se th e Defen da nt s d idno t ex erci se du e d il ig en ce. To de m on st rat e due di li ge nc e, th e m ov in g p arty m us t s ho w why

he di d n othave th e ev id en ce atth e ti m e o f th e tr ia l. 1 1 Wrig ht& Mi ll er, Fed eral Prac ti ce an d P ro cedur e, Ci vi l § 28 59
16(2 01 0) . Thu s, fo r ex am pl e, th e fai lu re t o l oc at e a wit ne ss pri orto tri al , who m th e
m ov an t l at er ar gu es was i m po rta ntto th e cas e, wil l b e tr eat edas alac k o f du e di li ge nc e. Id . Thi s i s p reci se ly the si tu at io n h ere. Harrel l was aware o f th e Me di

W ei gh t cl ai m

no lat er tha n Ap ril , 20 08 an d v ery fam il ia r wit h Dr. Zb el la ’s po si ti on in th e p ract ic e. He co ul d e as il y ha ve de po se d Zb el laan d d is co ve redth e id en ti ty of Sh aro n DeLu ca. Defe nd an ts off er n o c on vi nc in g a rg um en t t ha t t he y were unabl e to ob ta in th e te st im on y

in qu es ti onfro m

Zbel laor De Luc a attri al . Thei r arg um en t th atth ey were n oton no ti ce tha t t hi s t es ti m on y was i m po rta ntis unpe rs ua si ve . Als o
unpe rs ua si ve is th ei r arg um en t t ha t t he y sh owe d d il ig en ce b y

att em pt in g t o
subp oe naZbel ladu rin g t ria l. Si m pl y pu t, Defe nd an ts co ul d h av e (an d p ot en ti al ly sh ou ldha ve ) pr oc ur edbe fo re o r du rin g t ria l the tes ti m on y th atth ey no w see k t o pr es en t. Th ey

fai le d t o d o s o. Defen da nt s al so arg ue th atth e jury’ s v erd ic t s ho ul d b e se t as id e due to frau d pe rp etrat edby Plai nt iff

. Rul e 6 0( b) (3 ) al lo ws a d is tri ctco urt t o “ rel ie ve a pa rty or it s l eg al rep res en ta ti ve fro m a fi na l ju dg m en t, o rd er, o r pr oc eed in g [b as edon ] frau d
. . . mis rep res en ta ti on , or m is co nduc t b y anop po si ng pa rty. T o p rev ai l o n a 60 (b )(3 ) m ot io n, t he m ov an t m us t p res en t cl ear a ndco nv in ci ng ev id en ce tha t an adve rs e p art y

ha s o bt ai ne d ave rd ic t t hr ou gh frau d, m is rep res en ta ti on , or o th er
m is co nduc t.” C ox Nucl ear P ha rm acy, In c. v. CTI , INC., 47 8 F .3d13 03 , 13 14 (11 th
17Ci r. 20 07 ). The “ co nduc t co m pl ai ne d o f m

us t b e su ch as p rev en te d the lo si ng pa rty fro m ful ly andfai rly pres en ti ng hi s ca se or d efen se .” Ro zi er v . For d M ot orCo ., 57 3 F.2 d 1 33 2, 1 33 9 (5 th Cir . 19 78 ). Harre ll arg ue s t ha t Ki ss in ge r-Ca m pb el l i nc orrect ly stat edth e d at e o f he r in te rv ie w with Dr. Zb el la , in te nt io na ll y pe rjuri ng he rs el f in ord er t o m ak e itap pe ar th atsh e was ap pl y in g fo r a p os it io n d iff eren t fr om

th e o ne th atDeLuc a was hi red to fil l. Th e arg um en t s eem s t o turn o n aqu es ti onof f act , whethe r th e d at e o f th e in te rv ie w was t ha t t es ti fie d t o b y Kis si ng er-C am

pb el l o r th atno w bel at ed ly
as se rte d b y

Defen da nt s. Ru le 60 (b )(3 ) “ is aim edat ju dg m en ts whi ch were u nf ai rly ob ta in ed , no t atth os e whi ch are fa ctua ll y in accu rat e.” Id . “ Factua ll y in co rrec t jud gm en ts are t he subjec t o f Ru le 60 (b )(2 ).” Id . at 1 33 9 n .4. Defe nd an ts fai l t o pr oduc e cl ear a ndco nv in ci ng ev id en ce o f frau d. Th e te st im on y of Zb el laan d DeLuc a m erel y

in di cat es th atth ere a re co nf li ct in g a cco un ts on pre ci se ly whe n cert ai n p as t ev en ts oc cu rred . Thi s i s n otev id en ce o f pe rjury or a co ns pi rat or ia l
sc he m e to co nc oc t a f

al se st ory , as Def

en da nt s al le ge . Lik ewis e, Defen da nt s’ ass ert io n o f a fraudin th e fo rm of f al se tes ti m on y reg ard in g e m ai ls is no t s up po rte d b y cle ar an d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e. Pl ai nt iff’s
co rres po nd en ce wi thpo te nt ia l em pl oyers was no t fo res eeab ly relev an t wh ensh e fil edhe r fi rs t s ui t, a Fa ir Lab or Sta nd ard s Actov ert im e cas e. Andby the ti m e th e

18em ai ls ha d app aren t re le va nc e, th ey ha d b een de le te d a s a r ou ti ne m at te r. Fu rth erm or e, th e ref

eren ces to em ai ls th atwere m ad e attri al were ei th er n otm ad e in fro ntof t he jury orwere m ad e as va gu e ref eren ces to Kis si ng er-C am pb el l’s ab il it y to sp eakto pe op le sh e h adne two rk edwith i n the in du st ry . There is no t cl ear
an d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e th atth e fai lu re t o p ro du ce s uc h e m ai ls pre ve nt ed Defen da nt s fr om

ful ly andfai rly pres en ti ng th ei r cas e. 5 Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, the jud ge m en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt i s AFFIRMED.

Def endants c laim for the f

irst time in their reply

brief that the testimony

of Ga mara s can 5 be disca rded a s inherently

incre dible. Although the argument is without m erit, we decline to addre ss this and other ar guments that are raised f or the fir st tim e in a r eply brief. United States v. J ernig an, 341 F .3d 1273, 1284 n.8 (11th Cir. 2003). Allowanc e of suc h arguments would be inhere ntly prejudicia l to the Appellee, who is not given a n opportunity

to brief a response . 19