Opinion ID: 1125042
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Circuit Court's Denial of the Declaratory Defendants' Motion for a New Trial

Text: In their cross-appeal, the Declaratory Defendants contend that the circuit court abused its discretion by denying their motion for a new trial pursuant to HRCP Rule 59(a) in light of newly discovered evidence of DuPont's discovery fraud and misconduct. We disagree. HRCP Rule 59(a) provides that [a] new trial may be granted to all or any of the parties and on all or part of the issues (1) in an action in which there has been a trial by jury, for any of the reasons for which new trials have heretofore been granted in actions at law in the courts of the State[.] Furthermore, [b]oth the grant and the denial of a motion for new trial is within the trial court's discretion, and we will not reverse that decision absent a clear abuse of discretion. United States Steel Corp., 82 Hawai`i at 54, 919 P.2d at 316 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The Declaratory Defendants do not take issue with the circuit court's findings of fact. In reaching its conclusion, the circuit court specifically found that the Declaratory Defendants did not show due diligence in the discovery at issue because they usually took no position regarding discovery motions. Thus, the circuit court denied the Declaratory Defendants' motion for a new trial based on our holding in Orso, 56 Haw. at 250, 534 P.2d at 494, in which we stated the following: The authorities are in agreement that a new trial based on newly discovered evidence can be granted provided the evidence meet the following requirements: (1) it must be previously undiscovered even though due diligence was exercised; (2) it must be admissible and credible; (3) it must be of such a material and controlling nature as will probably change the outcome and not merely cumulative or tending only to impeach or contradict a witness. (Emphasis added) (citations omitted). The Orso standard applies regardless of whether the motion based on newly discovered evidence is made pursuant to [HRCP] Rule 59 or [HRCP] Rule 60(b)(2). Matsumoto v. Asamura, 5 Haw.App. 628, 631, 706 P.2d 1311, 1313 (1985). Because a movant must satisfy all three requirements of the Orso standard, even [a]ssuming, arguendo, the [newly discovered] evidence is material to the issue in question, a circuit court will deny a motion for a new trial when the [movant] has failed to demonstrate due diligence in the discovery of the evidence. Orso, 56 Haw. at 250, 534 P.2d at 495; see also Deponte v. Ulupalakua Ranch, Ltd., 49 Haw. 672, 672-73, 427 P.2d 94, 95 (1967) (affirming a trial court's denial of a motion for a new trial under HRCP Rule 59(a) where [t]he trial court found that the plaintiff-appellant could have obtained the evidence by diligent search prior to the conclusion of the trial); Clement v. Cartwright, 7 Haw. 676, 678 (1889) (confirming the denial of a motion for a new trial where [t]he plaintiff's showing of diligence [in procuring evidence wa]s not satisfactory); Matsumoto, 5 Haw.App. at 631, 706 P.2d at 1313 (affirming a trial court's denial of a motion for a new trial pursuant to HRCP Rule 60(b)(2) where the trial court apparently agreed with the defendants' assertion that if [the plaintiff] had exercised due diligence she would have been able to discover the new evidence prior to trial). In addition to the fact that the Declaratory Defendants have waived any error in the circuit court's finding that the Declaratory Defendants did not show due diligence in the discovery at issue, the record also supports this finding. For example, although the Declaratory Defendants asserted in their opening brief that they joined in six of the Plaintiffs' discovery requests, the Declaratory Defendants subsequently conceded in their reply brief that they did not participate in at least three of the six discovery requests. There are but few cases tried in which new evidence cannot be hunted after trial, and in order to secure to parties the termination of their legal controversies the Court must be wary about granting new trials upon insufficient excuses for not procuring the evidence when the parties had their day in Court. Deponte, 49 Haw. at 673, 427 P.2d at 95 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, we hold that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Declaratory Defendants' motion for a new trial pursuant to HRCP Rule 59(a).