Opinion ID: 3063838
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admission of Redacted Settlement Agreement

Text: Barker and Access Now first contend that they are entitled to a new trial based on the putatively erroneous admission of the redacted settlement agreement. They argue the settlement agreement should have been excluded under Rule 408 because it was offered to prove the absence of liability and the amount of the claim. They further submit that the agreement was unduly prejudicial under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Neither argument is persuasive. We review a district court’s denial of a motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. See Action Marine, Inc. v. Continental Carbon Inc., 481 F.3d 1302, 1309 (11th Cir. 2007). “Because it is critical that a judge does not merely substitute his judgment for that of the jury, new trials should not be granted on evidentiary grounds unless, at a minimum, the verdict is against the great – not merely the greater – weight of the evidence.” Lipphardt v. Durango Steakhouse of Brandon, Inc., 267 F.3d 1183, 1186 (11th Cir. 2001) (quotation marks and citation omitted). A district court’s decision to admit evidence of a settlement agreement is likewise reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Westchester Specialty Ins. Servs. Inc. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 119 F.3d 1505, 1512 (11th Cir. 1997). Moreover, we afford a district court wide discretion in determining what evidence is relevant at trial. See Cabello v. Fernandez-Larios, 402 F.3d 1148, 1161 (11th Cir. 2005) (per 6 curiam). Rule 408 bars settlements or offers to settle in order “to prove liability for, invalidity of, or amount of a claim.” Fed. R. Evid. 408(a). The rule does not apply if the evidence is offered for another purpose. See id. at 408(b). Here, the redacted settlement agreement was not offered to prove liability for or invalidity of the claims against Bolton and TCR, but rather to show the measure of damages Barker sustained. Barker argued at trial that the campus was not usable to her for her entire three years of law school, entitling her to emotional distress damages for a thousand days at $250 per day. However, Barker admitted that she moved to a modified apartment a few months after she started law school which complied “for the most part” with the FHA. R15-344, Exh. Vol. 37 at 143. The settlement agreement detailed the modifications made to her apartment and the Clairmont Campus to make it usable for her while she was at Emory. The agreement expressly disavowed any acknowledgment of liability by Emory University and preserved Barker and Access Now’s claims against Bolton and TCR. Furthermore, the settlement agreement was not offered to show the amount of the claim. The amount of monetary consideration was redacted from the admitted agreement and there were no dollar amounts given for the cost of the modifications. As such, the redacted settlement agreement did not provide 7 evidence as to how much Barker and Access Now’s claim was worth. Compare Belton v. Fireboard Corp., 724 F.2d 500, 505 (5th Cir. 1984) (per curiam) (Rule 408 violated where trial court disclosed actual settlement amounts and instructed jury to consider those amounts in determining plaintiff’s monetary award). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the redacted settlement agreement under Rule 408. Admission of the redacted settlement agreement was also not unduly prejudicial. Relevant evidence may be excluded under Rule 403 if the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs its probative value. See United States v. Tinoco, 304 F.3d 1088, 1120 (11th Cir. 2002). We review a district court’s Rule 403 determinations for abuse of discretion and consider the evidence “in a light most favorable to its admission, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its undue prejudicial impact.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). The redacted version of the settlement agreement succinctly organized the numerous modifications Emory agreed to make to the Clairmont Campus and Barker’s apartment. Although Barker and Access Now contend the settlement agreement could imply a lack of liability, the jury could just as easily have made the opposite inference – namely, that Emory made the modifications because it was legally required to do so. See United States v. Arias, 431 F.3d 1327, 1337 (11th Cir. 8 2005) (“It does not tax the imagination to envision the juror who retires to deliberate with the notion that, if the defendants had done nothing wrong, they would not have paid the money back.”) (quotation marks, alterations, and citation omitted). Barker and Access Now have thus failed to show that they were unfairly prejudiced by admission of this evidence.