Opinion ID: 2620501
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion to Reopen the Evidence

Text: The Joneses challenge the District Court’s denial of their motion to reopen the evidence, after deliberations had begun, to introduce a July 2006 email that had been turned over as discovery but overlooked by counsel. Decisions to reopen are “traditionally a discretionary matter for the district court,” United States v. Vastola, 915 F.2d 865, 876 (3d Cir. 1990), which “should be extremely 6 reluctant to grant reopening,” United States v. Kithcart, 218 F.3d 213, 219 (3d Cir. 2000). We review for abuse of discretion. Prejudice to the party opposing the motion, and the moving party’s explanation for failing to present the evidence earlier, are salient considerations on a motion to reopen. United States v. Coward, 296 F.3d 176, 181 (3d Cir. 2002). In the email, Mikel Jones provided Spira a breakdown of how he planned to spend a $75,000 draw from the line of credit. The breakdown included a $7,000 expense for a remaining balance on a Philadelphia Eagles season ticket contract. Spira appears to have approved the expense, as he issued a $75,000 check to the law firm the next day. The Joneses claim that the email proves Spira perjured himself when he testified that he would never have approved using Stillwater funds to cover sporting ticket expenses: Q: Okay, did [Mikel Jones] tell you he intended to use the fund to purchase any tickets? A: No. Q: What about using funds to promote a sport events, in any fashion, to help the law firm? A: No.