Clehm v. BAE Systems Ordinance Systems, Inc. et al, No. 7:2016cv00012 - Document 238 (W.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 12/14/2018. (aab)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
rapRK'sOFFICE U.s.Dlsmcour ATROANOKE,VA IN I'H E U NITED STATESDISTM CT COU RT FILED FO R T H E W ESTE RN D ISTRICT O F W RGIN IA ROAN O U D IW SIO N DE2,1i 2213 JUL C. DLEX nlFRK sv: . C ART.A A.CLE H M Plaintiffy A. ' oEiur. vcuuR CivilAction N o.7:16Lcv-00012 V. BAE SYSTE M S O RD N AN CE SY STEM S,IN C.,ptp-t, a - By:H on.M ichaelF.U rbansld ClziefUnited StatesDistrictJudge D efendants. M EM O RAN D U M O PTN IO N Thismatterisbeforethecoutton incatcerated defendantloshuaLinkous'p-m . K post-trialmoéon fotanew trialot,in thealtetnative,relieffrom judgment,pursuanttoRule 59andRule60oftheFederalRulesofCivilliocedure,respecdvely.ECF Nos.224-227. Thiscasearisesfrom m uldple instancesofsexualassaultand battery pem ettated by defendantloshuaLinkousrtinkous'')againstplninéffCarlaClehm (<fclehm'')whileb0th were em ployed by BAE System s,Inc.attheRadford Arm yA m m unidon Plantin Radfozd, Virgirlia.Linkous'pleaofgul 'ltyonJune30,2015,and concomitantconvicéon forabusive sexualcontactinvioladonof18UIS.C.j2244(a)(1),estoppedhim from contestingliability asto the state assaultand battery clnim alleged in Count11ofthe Clehm 'sCom plaintand Clehm v. BAE Systems Ordinance Systems, Inc. et al SecondAmendedComplaint.See18U.S.C.j3664$.Theciviltrialon CountI1,conducted Doc. 238 onAugust23,2018,wasthezefoêelimited to thequesdon ofdamages.Thejuryzetarned a verdictinfavorofClehm in theamountof$500,000in compensatorydsmagesand $250,000 in puniéve dam ages.Linkouscontends,am ong otherthings,thatthevetdictisexcessiveand requeststhecolzrtto orderanew ttialor,in thealternadve,gtanthim reliefftom judgment. Dockets.Justia.com Linkousrecites,albeitin a ctusory and conclusorym anner,alitany ofgrievancesand exactly the sam egroundsin suppot'tofboth m oéons.Clehm arguesthatLinkous'm odonsare entirely withoutm eritand m ustbe del ed.Thepne eshavebriefed theissue m aldng this m atterripe fozthecourt'sconsideradon.Upon a thorough teview oftherecord and forthe reasonsset10:th herein,Linkous'm odonsateD EN IE D . 1. ln heracdon againstdefendantloshuaLinkous,plaindffCarlaClehm alleged that whilewotkingattheRadfotdArmyAmmunition PlanttdfA. rsenal'hl,shewassexually assaulted and battered on two occasionsby Linkous.ECF N o.59,3-4.From early 2014 to 2015,Clehm worked asaffhelper''in theTub House,afacllitylocated within the NitrocelluloseAreaoftheAtsenal.J-d.at6.Linkousworked within thissem earea,butasa NitrocelluloseChiefOpetator(TfNCCOJ) knowncoioquiallyasafTt'ubhouseclzief.''Id.at 4.Clehm w assexually assaulted byLinkousatwork on t'wo occasions,once on M ay 19, 2014,andagain on oraboutlune5,2014.ida.at5-6.W ithrespectto theMay 19incident, Clehm clnim sLinkouscam eup behind heras shewasleaving a building atwork and told het heneeded to ask hetsom ething.W hen shetried to walk away,Linkousgrabbed hetclothing, ptzlled hertowardslnim ,and repeatedly quesdoned heraboutlaiswife'ssupposed inhdelity. H e then suggested they have sex asrevengeagainstl' liswife.Clehm told Linkousthatshe wasnotinterested andthatshehad togetbackto herjob.LinkoustoldClehm to lethim know anything she saw orheard and to keep in touch and so forth.A co-workerwitnessed someoftheincident$eintermptedtheincidentandspoketoLinkous),andlaterreported w hathesaw to hllm an resources.Clehm w assexually assaulted and battezed again by 2 Linkouson oraroundJune5aftervisiting herlocker.In thestatementoffacts accompanying Linkous's/1111 plea,Linkousadm itted to the following with respectto the June2014 assault: ' InJune2014,1saw Vicnm o 2gclehmjathezlockez,nearthe bteak room in the Tub H ouse.Victim 2 began to exittheTub H ouse.Assheneated theexit,Igzabbed hezby theuppetatm and dtagged herinto aroom on the side oftheTub H ouse whereelectticalcirctzitbreakersarehoused (theftbreaket room').Iclosedthedoorandtutnedoffthelkhts.Ipushed heragainstacontrolpaneland pitm ed herdown with m y body. Iforcibly kissed her,unbuttoned hercoverallclothing,and kissed herbreastsagainstherwill.Iputm y handsinside her coverallsand touched hervaginalareaovetherunderwearwith m y hand againstherwill. ECF No.59,at5-6.Clehm chimed thatdtuingtheluneassault,shefearedforherlifeand wasonly able to leavewhen shetold Linkousthatcowozkersw erewaiting forhet. Linkouspled /. 1111 to cHm inalchatgesofsexualassaultand batteryofClehm and otherfemalecoworkersinUnitedStatesv.JoshuaLinkous.CaseNo.7:15-cr-00016.Linkous wassubsequently sentenced on O ctober13,2015,to 14 yearsincarceradon.In the afterm ath ofthese events,Clehm suffered fzom vatioushealth issues,including m igtaines,inability to focus,debilitadng headaches,depzession,anxiety,and panic attacks.Clehm began seeking m edicaltreatm entforherstressatwork and on Augtzst,5,2014,reported to herpHm ary caredoctorthatshehad been sexuaiy assaulted.ECF N o.154-26.Clehm latetbegan seeking psychiatzic counseling from alicensed clirlicalsocialw orker,aswellasfrom BAE'S Em ployeeA ssistanceProgram .Clehm condnued to sttugglewith fear,inttazsivethoughts, and diffculty sleeping.O n M arch 28,2016,shewentouton shoztterm disabilityleave with BAE'Sapptoval.ECF N o.154-139ECF N o.154-2,at388,400.Shesubsequently broughta civilacéon againstLinkousin connecdon with the conductforw hich Linkousw asconvicted ctiminally.PtlrsuanttoRule17$)and(c)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure,thecout't appointed Thom asE.Strelka,Esq.to serve asguardian ad litem fozLinkousin the civil acdon.O n August,23,2018,following aoneday ttiallim ited to dam ageson Count11 againstdefendantLinkous,thejuryretutnedaverdictin favorofClehm,awardingher $500,000in compensatorydamagesand $250,000in punitivedamages.A totalofeight witnessesappeared on behalfofClehm ,inclufling fam ily,friends,form et co-workers,D t. RussellW .M elton ftom theCarilion Clinic,and Bettylones,aW omen'sResourceCenter counselotwhowozked wit. h Clehm following theM ayandJune2014 assaults. Linkoushasmovedforthecourtto setasidethejudgmententeredonAugust,27, 2918,and assertsavariety ofgroundsostensibly suppordng lnism otionsforanew trialand forrelieffzom judgment.He& stclnimsthattheamountawardedtotheplaindffwas ffgrosslyexcessive.p, 'ECF No.225,at1.Heattributesthisexcessivejudgmentto,among otherthings,the court'sdenying hisO ctobet16,2018,m oéon to condnue,ECF N o.198, wllich heclaim sptevented him fzom ffproperlyassistlingl'?in hisdefenseatttialffeven* t. 1,1 the assistanceofm y guardian ad litem .''ECF N o.225,at2-3.Linkousalso m nintainsthatllis inability to have ffregularand frequent''com m unicadon with lzisguardian ad litem ,Thom as Strelka,Esq.,contributedto tlzepurportedlyexcessiveverdict.Jéaat2.Hefllt-rheraveêsthat hisinterestswereffoverlyprejudiced''bybeingreqllited topardcipateitathettialfrom a correcdonalfacility and thathewasdenied the Tfopportunityto reasonably prepare fortrial.'' ECF N o.227,at1-2.The groundspresented in supportofb0t.h m oéonsateidendcal, indeed reproduced verbatim in each m oéon.The cout.talso notesthatm any ofthegtounds 4 proffered in Linkous'spost-trialm odonspresently beforethecourtare the sam easthose rised in hispre-tzialm odon to condnue ftled on the eve oftdal,ECF N o.198,wlzich the courtdenied.The cotutwilladdresseach ofLinkous'clnim sin turn. II. Thegtantozdenialofam odon fozanew ttialisentrusted to and a m attezzesdngin thesounddiscreéon ofthedisttictcourt.W adsworthv.Clindon,846F.2d265,266 (4th Cit. 1988)(ciéngOldDominionStevedorin Co .v.PolskieLinieOceaniczne,386F.2d193 (4thCir.1967)).Themodonmaybegranted,Ttafterajtuytdal,fotanyteason fotwhicha new trialhasheretofore been granted in an acdon at1aw in fedetalcourt.''Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(a)(1)(A).TheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheFolzrthCircuit'slistofacceptable groundsforwhich acourtmayexerciseitscliscredon tograntanew ttialincludes:<t(1)the verdictisagainsttheclearweightoftheevidence,or(2)isbaseduponeddencewhichis false,or(3)witlresultinamiscarriageofjuséce,eventhoughtheremaybesubstanéal evidencewllich wolzld preventthe direcdon ofaverdict.''A tlasFood S s.and Servs. Inc.v. CmneNat.Vendors,Inc.,99F.3d 587,594 (4th Cir.1996)9Clinev.W al-Mat'tStores,Inc., 144F.3d294,301(4thCir.1998).ffT1lisdisctetionincludesoverturningverdictsfor excessivenessand ordering a new trialwithoutquav cadon orcondidoned on thevetdict winner'srefusaltoagreetoareducdon trernittiturl.''Gasperiniv.Ctr.forHllmanides,lnc., 518U.S.415,432-33(1996).Toreceiveanew ttial,theFourth Citcuitzequitesafindingthat thejuryverdictwasmadeexcessivebyffpassion andprejudicespringl 'ngfrom indukence,in thejuryroom ,in such feelings,gthatqmay notbecuredbyaremitdttm butonlyanew ttial.'' Bennettv.Faitfax Cty.,Va.,432F.Supp.2d 596,602 (E.D.Va.2006)(cidngFordMotor Co.v.Mahone,205F.2d267,273(4thCit.1953)).Inothezwords,absentevidenceof passionorptejudicebythejuty anexcessiveverdictaloneisinsufûcienttograntanew ttial. SeeFordM ototCo.v.M ahone,205F.2d267,273(4thCit.1953)(ûndingthatanexcessive verdictcoupledwithevidencethatoneofthejurozsattemptedtosendamessagetothe plaintiffscounselw hile the tt'iZ wasin pzogzess,w hich wasdesigned to aid %im in his conductofthecase,required anew ttiall;Alltedv.M aerskLine,Ltd.,826F.supp.965 (1993),970(E.D.Va.1993),rev'dp-qother ounds,35F.3d139(4thCir.1994)solding thatalthough thejuryawaêd of$1,000,000.00wasexcessive,thecotzrtcotlldnotorderanew trialbecausethçzewasnoevidencethatthevezdictwastheresultofpassionorpzejudice); GreatCoastalEx ress Inc.v.lnt' lBhd.ofTeam sters Chauffeurs W arehousem en and He1ersofAm.,511F.2d839,846(4thCit.1975)(cidngUrlitedConstt.W ozkersv.Haisli Bakin Co.;223F.2d 872 (4th Cit.1955),fortheproposidon thatan excessiveverdictbased on animproperjuryinstrucdonategroundsforanew trial).Inreviewingamodonfotanew trial,the colzrtm ustweigh theevidenceand considerthe credibility ofthewitnessesto detemnninewhetherthe verdictwasagainsttheclearweightofthe evidence orwasbased upon evidencethatwasfalse.Ifnussman v.Ma land,272F.3d625,647 (4th Cir.2001). W hetegranéng anew ttialwotzld beim properbecause thereisno evidence of ttpassionorprejudice''bythejuty,acourtmaynonethelessreqllitearemidturifit concludesthatavezdictisexcessive.Bennettv.Faitfax Ctp,Va.,432 F.Supp.2d 596,599- 600 (E.D.Va.2006).Underthepracéceofremitdtur,ffthettialcourtordersanew tdal urllesstheplainéffacceptsareducéon in an excessivejuryaward.''Clinev.W al-Mm Stores, lnc.,144F.3d294,305(4th Cir.1998).ThecourtwillftrstaddressLinkous'cbim of 6 excessivenessasto the compensatov and punidve dam agesawardsand determ ine the propriety ofgrandng aremitdturunderVirginia law .The cout.twillthen assesswhether, desjiteitsfindingsvis-à-visexcessivenessandremitdturunderVirginialam itshould neverthelesssetasidethejudgmentsandgrantanew ttialpursuanttoRule59oftheFederal RulesofCivilProcedtue.Linkous'averm entsthatare notditectly related to theissue of excessiveness,namelythathewasffoverlyprejudiced''bybeingreqllitedtopnecipatefrom acorrecéonalfacilityand hism oregeneralized clnim thathewasffderzed the opporturlity to reasonably prepate forttial''willbe addressed in the cotut'sanalysisofLinkous'alternadve modonforrelieffrom judgmentundetRule60. A. ThegravamenofLinkous'modons,bot.hforanew tdalandrelieffrom judgment,is theallegedexcessivenessofthejury'sdamagesawards.Thejuryreturned$500,000in compensatoryand $250,000in punidvedamages.Thecouttwilladdressthealleged excessivenessofthe com pensatoryand puniéve dam agesawardssepr ately,asdifferent standardsapply in assessing each award.W hete a m otion fotanew tdalisbased upon the allegedexcessivenessofthejuty'sdamagesawards,federalstandardsapplytofederalclnims, butstate1aw standatdsm ystbe applied to state1aw clnim s.G as eriniv.Centerfor Hlzmanities,Inc.,518U.S.415,426-31(1996)9Konkelv.BobEvansFnt-ms,Inc.,165F.3d 275,280-81(4th Cir.1999);Brownin -FetrisIndus.ofVetmont lnc.v.Kelco Dis osal Inc.,492U.S.257,279-80 (1989)(refusingto craftafederalcommon-law standard of excessivenessbecauserfthesearem attezsofstate,and notfedetal,common 1aw'').Thus, whetherthejury'saward ofdamagesforthestatetortclnim ofassaultand batteryinthis 7 m attetshould be tem itted orotherwise setaside asexcessiveisa m attetofVirgml ' 'alaw. Hu hstonv.New HomeMedia,552F.Supp.2d559,565(E.D.Va.2008)(citingStamathis v.Flyingl.,Inc.,389F.3d429,438(4f. hCir.2004)). UnderVirginialaw, gwjhenaverdictischallenged on thebasisofalleged excessiveness,a ttialcourtis' com pelled to setitaside<ifthe am ountawarded isso greatasto shock the conscience ofthe courtandtocreatetheimpressionthatthejuryhasbeen moévatedbypassion,corrupdon,orprejudice,orhas M sconceived orm isconsttnned thefactsorthelaw,orifthe award isso outofpropoO on to theinjtuiessuffered asto suggestthatitisnotthe productofafairand im pardal decision.' Shepatd v.CapitolFoundry ofVitginia,Inc.,et.a1.,262V a.715,718,554 S.E.2d 72,75 (2001)(quotingEclmistonv.Ku senel,205Va.198,201,135S.E.2d777,780(1964)9 Poulston v.Rock 251Va.254,256,467S.E.2d 479,481(1996))9seealso Srnithe v.Sinclair Ref.Co.,203Va.142,148,122S.E.2d872,877(1961)(explainingthatthejuryawardshould alsobesetasideifthejurymisconceivedtheseriousnessoftheplnintiff'sitjlltiesl.Inmaking thisdeternainaéon,the courtm ustevaluate the evidence relevantto theissue ofdam ages, viewing such evidencein thelightm ostfavorableto theprevniling patty - here Clehm . She ard,262Va.at718,554S.E.2dat75(citingPoulstonv.Rock,251Va.254,261,467 S.E.2d479,483(1996)).Ifthereisevidence,whenviewedinthelightmostfavorableto Clehm,to sustain thejury's$500,000compensatoly damagesaward,then remitringor otherwiseseténgasidetheawardiserror.1d.(cie gEdmiston,205Va.at202-03,135 S.E.2d at780). B. The Suptem e CouttofVitginiahasheld thatphysicalhmtm and pecuniary lossesare notrequited in orderto sustain asubstandalcom pensatory dam ageaward and that Tfevidence ofsozrow,m entalangaish,and solace''arealonesufficient.H u hston v.N ew HomeMeclia,552F.Supp.2d 559,567 (E.D.Va.2008)(cidng She ard,262 Va.at723,554 S.E.2dat77);Sn derv.Fatherl,158Va.335,351,163S.E.358,364(1932)9Williams PrinéngCo.v.Saunders,113Va.156,180,73S.E.472,478 (1912).W hilethecompensatory dam agesaw ard in thiscaseissubstanéalcom pared to otherstateand federalcasesitw olving sexualassaultand battery,the Suptem eCourtofVitgitlia specilk ally proscribescom pnting dam ageawardsasam eansofm easuring excessiveness.Allied Concrete Co.v.Lester,285 Va.295,316,736S.E.2d699,710(2013)(holclingthattrialcourtimproperlybaseddecision to grantrernittituton im propercom patison ofaw ardsand failed to considerproperfactors in evidence orto provide anyw ay ofascertairzing whetherthereduced aw atd beatsa reasonablereladontodamagessufferedbytheplainéfililohnCrane,Inc.v.lones,274Va. 581,594-95,650S.E.2d851,857-58(2007)(zefusingtoapplytheftaverageverdictrule''to ovetturn averdict,. holding thatexcessivenessdeterm inadonsm ustbe based on the factsand circlzm stancesofeach case,and collecdng caseswhetetheSuptem e Cout'tofVitgmi 'a declined to engagein acompatison ofverdictsin assessing excessiveness);Rosev.Jaques, 268Va.137,159,597S.E.2d64,77(2004)(T' hethfnlstof...Mills'argumentisthatthe jtzry'sverdictisexcessivewhen comparedto otherèost-traumadcstressdisorderqcases, statewideandnadonally.However,...M ' tllscitesno othercasewherethis(clotuthas sancéoned averdictcomparison analysisasthem easureofaverdict'sexcessiveness.);c. i W eihuaH uan v.Rectot& VisitorsofUniv.ofVir 'nia,N o.3:11-CV -00050,2013 W L 865845,at*11(W.D.Va.Mar.7,2013)rTheFolzt' thCitcuithasclearlyinclicatedthatpast awatdsshouldseweasgaidelinesfotthetrialjudgetoconsiderwhendecidingwhetherto grantanew ttialrlisitert' littitazr.''l;Hetzelv.C .ofPtinceWitliam,89F.3d169,172(4th Cit. 1996)(insttucdngthedistrictcoutttoRcloselyexnminetheawardsgintwoothercasesj, which webelieveatecompazabletowhatwould bean appzopziateawazdin thiscase'). Further,theSuprem e CourtofVirginia hasrepeatedly em phasized thattheam ount ofaverdictissquarelywithinthejuty'sdisctedon,thatitisinviolatewhenitisatzivedat upon com petentand properinstrucéons,and thatallreasonableinfetencesm ustbe dtaw n infavoroftheverdictrenderedwhenevaluadngtheappropdatenessoftheamountofajury verdict.Showkerv.Iiratzer,77 Va.Cit.389,389 (2009)(citingRichatdsonv.BtaxtonBaiLC ,257Va.61,510S.E.2d 732 (1999:.Virginia'qhighestcourthasalso emphasized that .- - - Kfgiqftheverdictmerelyappearstobelatgeandmorethanwhatthetzialjudgewouldhave awardedhadhebeenamemberofjury,itshouldnotbedisturbed,becausetodo sowould beto<dowhathemaynotlegallydo,thatis,subsdttztelaisjudgmentforthatofthejtlry.''' Smithe ,203 Va.at146,122 S.E.2d at875.In sum ,the law ofVitginia establishesa formidablepresumpdonagainstrenlittingozotherwisedisturbingjuryvetdictson excessivenessgzounds.SeeAllied Concrete Co.v.Lester,285 Va.295,317,736 S.E.2d 699, 711(2013)(M cclanahan,J.,dissenting)rfW ith thisgcjourt'sevezevolvinglimitadonsupon thepowerand dutyofttialjudgestoorderremittitur,fotallpracticalputposestlaelastnailin thecof:n ofrernitéturhasbeen clriven ....??). Hete,Linkousasseztsthatthe$500,000in compensatorydam agesawarded to the Clehm isffgrossly excessive.''Thereisno quesdon thatthe award issubstandaland atthe outerreachesofareasonablejuryverdict.Nonetheless,givenallthefactsandtheseverityof Clehm'sallegedinjuries,aswellasthesuigenerisnatureofinjlltiesinvolvingsexualassault and battery,itcannotbe said thatthe award isso excessive asto w arrantintervendon by the court.Indeed,with theexcepdon ofllisown conclusory statem entsallegm ' g excessiveness, Linkous,revealingly,hasfailedtopointtoanyspecifcevidenceshowipgthatthejuryaward wastheresultofffpassion,corrupdon,orprejudice.''lNordoesLinkousaver,forexample, thatthe$500,000 awardisagainsttheweightoftheevidence,disproportionateto theinjlzries suffered,or theresultofamisconsttnpalofthe factsorthelaw.Instead,Linkousattdbutes theallegedlyexcessivejudgmenttothecourt'srefusaltograntlnismoéontocondnue,ECF N o.198,hisinability to havetegulatand frequentcontactwith hisguatclian ad litem ,and otherissueslargelytangentialinadjudicadngexcessiveness. To theextentLinkouswasdissadsûed with the levelofcom m unicadon with Strelka, he should haveraised thisissue atttial.H eclid not.Indeed,when asked explicitly bythe cout'tw hetherhewasfully sadshed with thework ofhisguazclian ad litem ,Linkous answered affi= atively.W ith respectto them otion to condnue,and therelated clnim thathe wasffderlied theoppormnitytoreasonablypreparefortrialc Linkousmoved to condnuethe tsialfourmonthsafterhewasflrstnodfiedofthetrialdateandjustoneweekbeforethetrial wasdue to com m ence.N otonly wastlziseleventh-hotu m odon to conénue ftled unreasonably late,butLinkousalso provided no explanadon forw hathe intended to do wit.h 1T. inlrousdoesclnim thatappeazingbyvideoconferencefrom pzisonwasprejudicial.However,therecorddoesnot permittheinference,nordoesFlnlroussupplyanyfactualbasisforconclurling,thatthewayinwhichTlnkousappeared wassoprejudicialastojusdfyanew ttial.Indeed,totheextentLinlrouscloimsthatappearingfrom prisonisintolerably prejudicial,heiseffecdvelyarguingthatciviltzialscannotproceedtlnlesstlzecourtisabletoproctuethephysical presenceofl carcerated defendants.Thisisneitherreasonablenorthelaw .SeeUnited Statesv.Baker,45F.3d837,843- 44(4thCiz.1995);Muhammadv.Warden.BaltimoreCitylail,849F.2d107,111-12(4thCir.1988)Soldingthata plnindffinmateinasecdon1983acdonhadnoabsolutezighttobepresentathisjurytHall. any addidonaltim e to prepare fortrial.In any event,theseatgum entsatebesidethepointin assessing excessiveness,asthey do notprovideany basisfotthe colzttfincling thatthe judgmentwaserroneousorfatallyinfectedbypassion,corrupdon,orprejuclice. Linkousalso doesnotallege thatthe cout'twasin etrorasto theadm ission ofany of theevidence,jutyinstnlcdons,orothezzelevantpzoceeclingsdlztingthetrial.Inozderto dete= ineifthe$500,000verdictisonethatisexcessiveenough to shock theconscience,it isnecessarytolookatthefactorsthatwouldhaveinfluencedthejurytoawardtheamountit did.Therecordreflectstharthecouttinsttuctedthejuryasfollowstegatdingcompensatory dam ages' . lnstruction N o.20 Thepum ose ofcom pensatory dam agesisto m ake theplaitntiff whole.:--thatis,to reasonably com pensate the plaindffforthe dam agesshe hassuffered. Youmayawardcompensatorydamagesonlyforitjudesthat theplaindffproveswereproxim ately caused by thedefendant's conduct.The dam agesthatyou awatd m ustbe fait compensadon fozalloftheplaindfpsdam ages,no m ore and no less.You should notaw ard com pensatory dam ages fot speculaéveinjuties,butonlyforthoseinjutieswhichthe plaindffhasactazally suffered otthattheplaindffisreasonably likely to sufferin the futare. Youraward should beguided by dispassionate com m on sense. Compudng dam agesm ay be difhcult,butyou m ustnot1etthat clifûcultylead you to engagein arbitraryguesswork.On tlae otherhand,the law doesnotrequirethatthe plaindffprove tlae am ountofherlossesw'itlzm athem adcalprecision,butonlywit.h asmuch de6nitenessand accuracy asthecircum stancespe- it. Theburden ison theplaindffto proveby thegreaterweightof the evidenceeach item ofdam age she clnim sand to provethat each itèm wascaused by thedefendant.Sheisnotzequired to Prove theexactam ountofherdam ages,butshe m ustshow 12 suf:cientfactsand circum stancesto perm ityou to m ake a reasonable estim ateofeach item .Iftheplaintifffailsto do so, then she cannotzecoverforthatitem ... In dete= ining the com pensatory dam agesto which theplaindff isenétled,you shallconsiderany ofthe following wllich you believe by thegteaterweightoftheevidence: Al1financiallosswhichisaresultoftheinjurytothe plqintiffcaused by thedefendant; (2) AIIphysicalinjuly theplaindffsuffered; (3) A1lemoéonalinjudesplaindffsuffered,includingshame, hllm iliadon,em barrassm ent,orindignity to herfeelings thatshe suffezed. You m ay also considetin awarding com pensatorydnm agesthe insuléngcharacteroftheinjuties,thedefendant'sreason for injuringthepbindff,and anyotheêcircllmstanceswlaich makes theitjuriesmoresedous,ifanyofthesethingsareshown bythe evidence. Yourverdictshallbeforsuch sllm aswillfully and fairly com pensate theplaindffforthe dam agessustained asaresultof theassaultand batterp Instruction N o.21 Ifyou find thattheplaindffhad a condidon before the accident thatwasa% ravated asa resultoftheincidentorthatthepre- exisdngcondidonmadetheinjuryshezeceivedmoresevereor m orediffkultto treat,then in yourverdictfortheplnindff,she m ayrecover forthe aggravadon and fortheincreased severit)r ordifhculty oftreau ent,butsheisnotenétled to recoverfor thepre-exisdng condidon. ECF N o.21,at21-23.In accordancewit.h Virginia1aw and wit.h theagteem entofthe pnrries,thejuryinstructionsexpresslypermittedthejurytoconsiderffallemodonalinjudes plaindffsuffered,including sham e,hlxm iliadon,em barrassm ent,orindignity to her feelings,'' aswellastheffinstzldngchazactezoftheinjlxries.''ECF No.216,at23.Strelkadidnotobject to Cleém'srequesttoadd theTfemodonalitjuties''languagein lnstrucdonNumber20,and 13 infactconcededthatemoéonalinjutiesaretypicallyconsideredinanoveralldamages analysis.M oteovet,sim ilatins% céonshavebeen cited approvingly by theSuprem e Court ofVirgirlia.See e..,Baldwin,273V a.at657-58,643 S.E.2d at705-706. Withtespecttotheallegedinjuries,Clehm didnotptesentanyevidenceofspecial dam ages,such asm edicalbills,lostearnings,etc.H owevet,shetesdfied in graphic detail aboutemotionalsuffering thatresulted from theMayandlune2014 assaults,andpresented evidencethatshe soughtpsychiatric cate and extensive counseling thereafter.The courtwill notrecapitulatethe entirety ofClehm 'stestim ony regarding Linkous'conduct,butsufhce it to say thatthere wassufhcientevidence,viewed in the lightm ostfavotable to Clehm ,to supportthejury'sfinclingbyaffpreponderanceoftheevidence''thatshesuffered considerableem odonalhztm and long-lasdng tra'lm a thatwasproxim ately caused by the assaults.ECF No.216,at17,19,20.With respecttotheJune2014incidentin patdculat, Clehm w ascoming offa l6-hourshiftafterbeing ffdtafted''to work adoubleslliftwhen her em ployerwasunable to find anyone else to w ork thatday.W hen herslziftended,atwllich pointshewasunderstandably ffexhaustedy''she retutned to herlockerto puthersupplies away.Clehm tesdfied thatshe saw Linkousin thehallway and tded to avoid him by walking away.H owever,shortly afterexidng thelockerroom ,Linkousgrabbed Clehm ,dragged her into a Kflittle dark controlroom ,''closed the doorbehind them ,turned offthelights,and locked the door.H e then fondled herbreasts,started ldssing herneck,zeached fotand statted touching hervaginalarea,and stated thathewanted to have sexwith her.Clehm tried to resist,begged Linkousto stop,and wasextrem ely featfulgiven Linkous'ssizeand thefactthatnobodyelsewasaround.Linkouspressed Clehm ffzeally tkhtglyl''againstthe 14 wall.Clehm tesdûedthatevenifshehadnotjustworkeda16-hoursbift,shewouldnot have had enough sttength to push Linkousoffofher.2 Clehm described herlife afterthe attacksasffplzrehell,''and stated thatsheisalways scared,constantlylooking overhershoulder,and afraid ofthe datk.Clehm tesdfed that following theassaults,shecannotsleep in herbedroom with herpartnezbecausetheroom rem indshetofthe sm allzoom into which Linkousdragged her.Instead,she sleepson the couch in herliving room .Clehm furthertestihed to seeing m tzléple doctorsand counselors in theaftermath oftheassaults,includingDr.RussellMelton and counselorBettylones, m any ofw hom wanted to prescribehetvarioussleep-related m edicadons.Clehm also tesdfied thatshewasunem ployed fozasignifkantperiod oftim e aftettheassaults,that Linkous'acdonscaused herrelationship with herpattnerto fail,thatshesoughta tem porary restraining orderagainstLinkous,and thatshepurchased aflrent'm fotprotecdon. Therewasalso detailed tesHm ony from Clehm 'sfam ily,friends,and fot-m er cowotkersregardingheremoéonalitjuties,protractedanxiety,andthedetedoradonofher physical.and m entalhealth in the afterm ath oftheassaults.Thistestim ony included,am ong othezthings,specificdescripdonsofClehm barricacling doorsto pteventintrusionsand her m arked withdrawalftom norm allife.A form er secutityguard attheArsenaltesdfh d that . Clehm approached him and,visiblyscared and upset,told him tlmtLinkouswashaêassitlg herand thatshewasscared to go to work.Tam my M ullins,theplnintiff'ssister,described Clehm asunrecognizable shortly afterthe assaults,stating,fTIdidn'tknow who thisperson 2Inanexhibitenteredintoevidence,Clehm statedthatdllringtheJlme2014assault,shewasrjustsoterzised...hewas going to rape m e,killm e.H ell,Ididn'tknow whathewasgoing to do in thatdam n room .''ECF N o.217-4,at4. W hen she m anaged to escape fzom the room in which l', inkousdragged her,she stated that<T1wanted to die,Ihaveneverfelt likeapieceof1ow lifecrap.'''Fhecourtinsttuctedthejtzrythatitmayconsiderthesestatementssolelyforthepm-poseof showing thatClehm reached outin wziting to othersabouttheseepisodes. was.''M ullinsindicated thatwhen she asked Clehm why she had pushed chairsand tablesup againstthedootto hetapartm ent,Clehm told hetthatshew assexually assal ted atwozk. M llllinsflltthertestz ed thatClehm often looked nervousand appeated to have Tfaged'?and lostalotofweightsincetheassaults.Clehm'smother,CynthiaJenson,tesdfied that followingtheassaults,hezdaughtezwasconstantlyfeazful,jumpy,hyper-vigilant,and increasingly andsocial.Jenson indicated thatClehm willnottatn herback topeopleand sits wit.h hetback to thewallso shecan seewho isconaing.PattyD ennis,who isfriendswith Clehm ,teséfied thatwhen Clehm Snally told heraboutwhathappened,Clehm appeared ffscared to death.''D ennisalso noted thatClehm wasscared to go outin public,losta1otof weightaoften appered unkempt,andbecameaNecluse.';Jason Blankensllip,Clehm's partner,testifed thatClehm cannoteatozsleep,isconstantly scared and willnotgo anywhete by herself.ln addiéon to thesewitnesses,Dr.RussellW .M elton teséfied aboutlnis diagnosisofClehm withpost-traumaécstressdisotder.Finally,Bettylones,acounselorat the W om en'sResource Centerin Radford,testxed aboutherexperience counseEng Clehm . ln shott,the record indicatesthatClehm soughtm edicaltreatm entfollowing the assaults, and exhibited physicalm anifestaéonsofsttess,inclucling lossofsleep,m atked w eightloss, naigraines,and nightm ares.Clehm testified thatshe also expezienced suicidalideations, significantreladonship difficto es,and prolonged unem ploym enttelated to debilitadng tlashbacksoftheassaultsand persistentfear offurthersexualhatassm entin thew orkplace. Theassaultsalso appeated to exacerbate Clehm 'spre-exisdng m entalhealth ptoblem sand w ere a frequentthem e in m any ofhersubsequentcounseling sessions,which condnued for yearsaftertheassaults.Thejtu-ywasexpresslyinsttuctedthatrecoverywaspe= ittedforany aggravation ofpre-existing condidons,butnotforthe pre-exisdng condidon itself.ECF N o. 216,at24. Thereliabilityand credibility ofClehm 'stestim ony and thatofhercorroboradng witnessesclid notgo unchallenged.Strelka thoroughly cross-exae ned Clehm and hez witnessesasto whether som e,ifnotall,ofthealleged depression,anxiety,and em otional distressattdbuted to Linkous'conductpredated theassaults.Tlliscross-exam inaéon revealed,interaa,thatClehm hadbeen(1)prescribedanddeptessantstotteat(ftearful depression and anxiets''aswellasrnigtaines,beginningin 2007,(2)thatherplannetfrom January2014,severalmonthsbeforetheeventsofMay andJune2014,indicated thatshe feltshewasfflivinginrrliserys''and(3)thatherzelationshiptroublespredatedtheassaults. Strelka furtlnerquesdoned Clehm asto thedelay be> een theassaultsand herreporéng them to m anagem ent,aswellasprobed thewitnesses'potendalbiases,given thei. rfriendshipsand familialreladonsllipswith Clehm.M oreover,thecourtexptesslyinsttnncted thatffgoqur system oflaw doesnotpet-mitjurorstobegovernedbysympathy,prejudice,orpublic opinion.7'ECF No.216,at1.Thejutywasfurtherinstructedthatthepardes,thepublic,and thecouztexpected them to fçcarefully and im pardally considetallthe evidencecase,follow thelaw asstatedbythecourt,andreachajustverdictregardlessoftheconsequences.''In sum,thejurywas(1)fullyapprised ofthestrengthsandweaknessesin Clehm'scasefor damages,(2)properlyinstructedattheconclusion ofthettial,and (3)endtledto detetmine theweighttobegiven properlyadmitted evidence.Itwaswithin thejury'sprovinceto acceptorrejectthevariouswitnesses'testimonyasto thealleged effectsofLinkous'conduct 17 on Clelnm 'sphysicaland m entalhealth,and they apparently were convinced by testim ony thatshewaspzofoundly affected by the assaults. Thecourtfindsthattheissueswerefullyandfairlytded,andthatthejurycould teasonablyarriveattheawatdinthiscaseabsentpassion,cottupdon,otptejudice(ofwlaich thereisnoevidence),andwithanaccurateunderstanflingoftheissuesoffactandthelaw beforeit.Thejuryhadtheopportaznitytohea. tallofthetestimonyandassessthecredibility ofClehm and herrespecdvewitnesses.Itcannotbe said thatgiven the cum ulative evidence ofemodonalharm adduced atttialthat$500,000isoutofpropordon to Clehm'semotional injuties,orotherwiseindicadveofunfairnessormisconcepéon.W hileamuch smalleraward Fould also havebeen reasonable,withoutaddidonalevidenceshowing thatthe challenged dam agesaward wastheproductofsom e sortofprosczibed influence oz otlaeê misapptehension ofthecasebythejury,thecourtcannotsimplygtantanew ttialorrennit theverdictbecauseitism ozethan the courtwould have awarded.See Condo.Servs.-lnc.v. FirstOwners'A ss'n ofFortySix Hundred Condo.,lnc.,281 Va.561,580,709 S.E.2d 163, 174(2011)(f<Thetrialcourtmustaccordthejuryverdicttheu% ostdeference.');Bennettv. FairfaxCty.,Va.,432F.Supp.2d596,600(E.D.Va.2006)rf'I'hejuryvetclictmuststandfgilf thereisevidenceonwlaich areasonablejurycouldzetuzn avezdictin favozofthe nonmovingparty.''');Stebbinsv.Clark,5Fed.Appx.196,202(4thCir.2001)(holclingthat courtsffmusttreatajury'sverdictwithgreatdeferenceand respect''and Tfmustnotsetaside averdictaseitherinadequate orexcessivem erely because the disttictcourtwould have acted differentlyifithadbeen thettieroffactorbecausethejuty could havecometoadifferent conclusion thatthetrialjudgefeelswasmoreteasonable').In slxm,thecolxl'tfmdsthatthe compensatorydamageawardassessedbythejuryaglinstLinkousisnotexcessiveunder Vizginia1aw given thecitctpm stancesand evidence presented in thiscase,and thereforedoes nOtw arrantan intrusion by the court. Insofarasquandfyingorplacingavalueonemotbnalinjudesisfraughtwith clifûculty,itisin these typesofcasesthatthe estim adon ofdam agesispattofthe essence of thejuly'sfuncdon.SeeHomesle v.FreihtlinerCo .,61F.App'x105,117(4thCir.2003) (TAvedefertoajuty'sawardofdamagesfotintangibleharms,suchasemodonaldistress, becausethehnt'm issubjecdveandevaluadngitdependsconsiderablyonthedemeanorof thewitnesses.>);Foxv.Gen.MotorsCo .,247F.3d169,179-80(4thCir.2001)(upholding $200,000compensatorydamagesawardin hosdlewotk environm entcbim whereplaindff testified thathe suffered anxiety,seveze depression,and worsening ofhisalteady fragile workingcondidon);seealsoBoglev.Mccllzre,332F.3d1347,1359(11+ Cir.2003)rf'1*he standrd ofreview forawardsofcom pensatorydam agesforintangible,em odonalhnt.m is deferendalto thefactfinderbecausetheharm issubjectiveand evaluadngitdepends considerablyon thedemeanorofthewitnesses.?).Irrespecdveofwhetherthecouttitself wotzldhaveawarded suchalargeverdicthaditbeenamemberofthejury,giventhe testim onyastothespeciûcnatureoftheallegedemodonalsuffering,the$500,000 award doesnotshock the conscienceofthe cout'tforexcessivenessand thereforeisneither excessive nor w arrantsrem itdtuzunder Virginia law .See Baldw in v.M cc onnell,273 V a.650, 659,643S.E.2d703,707 (2007)(findingthetdalcourtto haveabused itsdisctedon by gzantingrerrtitdtazrand that$240,000in compensatoryand $100,000inputlidvedamageswas notunreasonableoroutofpropoMon fotfrshame,hllmiliation,embatrassmentor1r1(11g1,11t/7 where apattywasknocked down duting an altercadon with a co-w ozketand tepozted, inter alia,anTfinsulttohisdignitfl;seealsoM etsv.Cent.Fla.lhvestments lnc.,592F.3d1201, 1213 (11+ Cir.2010)(upholdinga$610,469.84judgmentforemoéonalhnt'm whereplainéff endured hum iliaéon and wasdrained ofherdesiteto go to work asatesultofunwanted sexualtouchingsin thew orkplace from aboss fftaking advantage ofhisem ployeeoveran extendedtimeftnme').In sum ,and aspteviously stated,thecouttdiscetnsno teasonto subsdtuteitsjudgmentforthatofthejuryastotheamountofdamagesnecessaryto compensateClehm'semoéonalinjllries.3 B. Linkousalso assertsthatthepuniéve dnm agesawatd levied againsthim isexcessive. fçln reviewing an awazd ofpunitive dam ages,therole ofthe distzictcoul'tisto determ ine whethetthejurfsverdictiswithintheconfinessetbystatelaw ....''Brownin -Ferris Industtiesv.KelcoDis osal,492U.S.257,278(1989).ff'l'hepurposeofcompensatory damagesistomaketheinjuredpbinéffwholeforlossesactazallysuffeted,whereaspunidve dam agesserveto fpunish thedefendantfotm aliciousconductorto display to othersan exam ple ofthe consequencesthey m ay expectifthey engagein sim ilatconduct.'''1W 1: v. M cMillan,594F.3d301,314(4thCir.2010)(cidngF.B.C.Stores,Inc.v.Duncan,214Va. 246,198S.E.2d 595,599(1973)).Inalawsuitwhere,ashere,statelaw providesthebasisof 3Following aseparatecriminalresdtt zdon hearing,thecourtotderedT, inkousto pay $38, 315.32in resdttzdon toClehm. Am.J.,CaseNo.7:15CR000016,ECFNo.88.Title18U.S.C.j3664(2000),wllichgovernsresdmdonorders,requires the courtto ffozderresdttzdon to each victim in the 11111am otmtofeach victim 'slossesasdetermined by the courtand withoutconsidezadonoftheeconomiccircnmstancesofthedefendant''j3664(l)(1)(A);UnitedStatesv.Dawkins,202 F.3d711,715-716(4thCir.2000).Thestat m econtainsalimitedoffsetprovision,reqlliringreducdonoftheresdtution amotm tto take into accotmtany am ountlaterrecovered ascompensatory damagesforthe sam elossby the vicfim itzany federalorstatecivilproceeding.j3664()(2).IfT, inlrousisendtledtoanoffsetincri minalresdtt zdonptusuanttoj 3664(2(2),suchareducdonisonlyappropdateuponamodonforcreditandafterpaymentsofthecompensatozy judgmenthav: ebegtm tobemadetoClehm. 20 decision,theTfptoprietyofan aw atd ofpunidvedam agesforthe conductin quesuon, and thefactozsthejutymayconsiderin dete= iningtheitamount,arequesdonsofstatelaw.'' Btownin -Ferris,492U.S.at278-79.lnVirgr ' 'a,Tfgtlhegeneraltnlleisthatthereisno flxed standard for them easureofexem plary orpunidvedam agesand theam ountofthe award is latgelyamatterwithinthediscreéonofthe'jury.''Baldwin,273Va.at659,643S.E.2dat707 (citingW ottiev.Boze 198Va.533,95S.E.2d 192,201 (1956))Phili Mortis Inc.v. Emetson,235Va.380,368S.E.2d268,287(1988)). fThesocietaland legalradonalefortheimposidon ofpunidve gdam ages)is punishm entofan outrageousact.''H enderson v.Hulin ,N o.4:16-CV-166,2017W L 4209761, at*5( E.D.Va.Sept.20,2017)(citingSimbeck Inc.v.Dodd-siskW hitlockCo , ., 257Va.53,58 (Va.1999)).Thus,theffbroad rtzlegovetningtheawatd ofpunidvedamagesis thatsuch dam agesm ay berecovered onlyw hen thereism isconductor actualm alice,or such recldessnessornegligence asto evince aconsciousdisregard oftherightsofanother.''Id. Judicialreview oftheamountofpunidvedamagesunderVitgt 'm'a1aw teqlxites:T<(1) cotfsideration ofreasonablenessbetween the dam agessustained and the nm ountofthe award,(2)themeasurementofpunishmentrequired,(3)whethertheawardwillamounttoa doublerecovery,(4)theproportionalitybetween thecompensatoryandpllniévedamages, and (5)theabilityofthedefendantto pay.''Baldwin,273Va.at659,643 S.E.2d at707 (ciéngPoulston,251Va.at263,467S.E.2d at484).Flxt'thet-more,aswith compensatory damages,<<ajury'sawardofdamagesmaynotbesetasidebyatzialcourt...unlessthe damagesareso excessive':asto ffcreatetheimpression thatthejuryhasbeeninfluencedby passion orptejudiceorhasitlsomewaymisconceived ormisunderstoodthefactsorthe 21 law.''Downe:v.CSX Ttansp.,Inc.,256Va.590,507S.E.2d612,614(1998).VitginiaCode j8.01-38.1,however,statesthatforanyacdonaccruingonorafterluly1,1988,ffgijnno eventshallthetotalnmountawarded fokpunitivedsmagesexceed $350,000.''Va.CodeAnn. j8.01-38.1 (1991). W ithzespecttopunidvedamages,thecourtinsr ctedtlzejuryasfollows; Instruction N o.24 Ifyou find thattheplaindffisenétled to be com pensated for herdam ages,and ifyou Fllrtherbelieveby thegreaterweightof the evidence thatthedefendantacted with acttzalm alice tow atd theplaindfforacted undercircum stancesam oundng to awiIIS' LI and wanton disregard oftheplaindff'srights,then you m ay also aw ard punidvedam agesto the plainéffto punish the defendant forhisactionsand to serve asan exam ple to detet him and othersfrom actingin a sim ilarway. ''A cm alm alice''isa sinisterorcorruptm oéve such ashatted, petsonalspite,illwill,oradesitetoitjutetheplaindff. Instruction N o.25 Any award ofpuniévedam agesyou m ay choose to im pose should takeinto accountthe reprehensibility oftheconduct,the hnt'm caused,thedefendant'sawarenessofthe conduct's wrongfulness,the duraéon ofthe conduct,and any concealm ent.Thus,any penalty im posed should beata relaéonsllip to the nature and extentofthe conductand the harm caused,inclufling thecom pensatory dam agesaward. A ny penaltyim posed should takeinto accountasanlidgadng factorany otherpenalty thatm ay have been im posed orwhich m aybe im posed forthe conductinvolved,inclucling any cHm inalpenalty atising outofthe sam e conduct. Theam 6untofany penalty m ay focuson depriving the defendantofproikdderived from theim properconductand on awarding the coststo the plainéffofprosecudng the cl/im . A ddidonally,any penaltym ustbe lim ited to punishm entand thusm aynoteffecteconom ic banknlptcy.To thisend,the ability ofthe defendantto pay any punidveaward entered should be consideted. Ifyou award purlidve dam ages,you m uststate sepatately in yourverdictthe am ountyou allow ascom pensatorydam ages and the am ountyou allow aspunidve dam ages. Finally,letmebecleat.Ihavejustgivenyouinstrucdonson puniéve dam ages.You should notinferfrom theseinsttucdons thatIhaveanyview asto whetherpunidvedam agesshould be awarded in thiscase orw hatam ountofpunidve dam ages should be awarded.Thatisforyou to decide. ThejtzryawardedClehm $250,000inpuro vedamages.NotonlydidLinkousconcedethat heacted witllacm alm alicein llisanswet,ECF N o.23,at1,butthete wasoverwhelm ing evidencepresented ofactualm aliceand willfuland wanton behavioron thepattofLinkous. In addidon to those factsadnlitted in Linkous'guilty plea,Clelnm tesdfied itlherown wotds thatduzingthelune2014 assault,Linkousgrabbed andpulledherinto afflittledark control toomy''locked thedoor,turned offthelights,and began Tflqissing gherqneck''ffcontinuedto go down towardsgheljbreastw''andTfhad hishandsitlgherjpocketto gherjvaginay''all againstherwill.Clehm furthertestihed thatshe wasffttying to push him off...buthehad Lherjagainstthewalland he'sreallybigandhad hisbodypressed up againstgher),reallyéght up agninstthewall.''Thereisno quesdon thatLinkous'acéonsweteouttageous,m alicious, ordonewith a ffsinisterorcorrupt''m odve.Indeed,theevidence suggeststhatLinkouswas atleastpardally m oHvated by a desireto getrevengeagainsthiswife.Clehm 'stestim ony dem onstratesthatshe suffered signifcantindignidesasaresultofLinkous'conductacausing hertofeelimmenseshame,humiliaéon,andfear.Thejurfspurlidvedamageawatd,though large,isneitherasshocking asthe conductitseeksto deternorunteasonablein thewake of theinjtuiesthejuryfoundweresustained. W ith tespectto thepunisbm entrequired forLl kous'behaviorand considetaéon of thedetettenteffectupon otlaerswho m ay actin a sim ilatfaslzion,the cokutcannotsay that theawatdisexcessive.Thecomtins% ctedthejut'ythatRgalnyawrdofpmiévedamages you m ay choose to im pose should takeinto accountthereprehçnsibility ofthe conduct,the harm caused,the defendant'saw arenessofthe conduct'swrong6nlness,the duration ofthe conduct,and any concealm ent.''Linkous'conductevinced a conscious,egregious,and predatory disregazd foïClebm 'szightto be fzeefzom unwanted,abusive sexualcontactin theworkplace.Thejurywasfreetoconcludethataseverepunishmentwasappropliate underthe factsofthecase. Thejury'spunidvedamageawarddoesnotamounttoadoublerecoverybecausethe jurywasins% ctedto baseitsawatd ofcompensatorydamageson anydnmagesClehm actuallysuffered,includingTfgalllemoéonalinjuries...shame,hlnmiliadon,embarrassment, orindignityto herfeelingsthatshe suffered''and to award punidvedam agesonly ifit believed Linkousacted with actualm aliceorawiIISIIand w anton disregard ofClehm 's zights.In doing so,tlaecout'tunderscoted thatthe purpose ofapuniéve dnm agesaward isto PunishthedefendantforVsacdonsandtoserveasanexampletodeterhim andothers from acdngin asimilarway.In shott,thejurywasawateoftherequirementsforand purposeofawarclingpunidvedamages.Thecourtpzesumesthatthejuryfollowsthe instrucéonsofthecolzrtabsentevidencetotheconttary.Stamathisv.Flyingl,lnc.,389F.3d 429,442 (4th Cir.2004)(cidngRichardson v.Marsh,481U.S.200,211(1987).Inlightofthe pellucidly cleardelineadon ofthebasisforeach.aw ard in theinstrucéonsand the reasonable basissuppotdng each aw atd,the zecozd doesnotsuggestdoublerecoveryin thiscase.See Baldwitx 273V a.at659,643 S.E.2d at707. Futthetmote,the2:1tatiobetween tlaejuty's$500,000compensatotydamageawatd andthe$250,000punitivedamagesawardisnotTfllnteasonableorstdkinglyoutof propordon.''Id.(cidngPhilipMotrisUSA v.W illiams,549U.S.346(2007)(teaffit-ming Urlited StatesSuprem e Courtprecedentthat(fthelongstanding historicalpracticeofsetting puniévedam agesatt'wo,three,orfou. rHm esthe size ofcom pensatory dam ages...is Tfinstrucdve,''and thatfflslingle-digitmuldpliersaremotelikelytocomportwith due process.'l).Here,theputadvedamagesawardishalfthecompensatorydamagesaward and thezefore fallswellwithin therange the United StatesSuprem e Courthasheld islikely to com portwith due process.Thus,because the 2:1 radon fallswithin the constitudonally acceptablezange,andbelow Virginia'sstatutorycapof$350,000,remittitatisnotjustzedon thebasisofproportbnality.SeeBMW ofN.Am.v.Gore,517U.S.559,573(1996).Lastly, Linkousm ade no representaéonsattdal,and m akesno tepresentationsin any ofhism oving papers,thatheisunabletopaythejury'sawatd.TheSupremeCourtofVirginiahasheldthat Kç while evidence ofnetwot'tlniszelevant...the lack ofevidence ofthe wzongdoer'snet worth doesnotitselfdefeatthe punitive award.''FIi o v.CSC A ssoc.,262 Va.48,58,547 S.E.2d216,226 (2001).H ence,anylack ofmiégadngevidenceregatdingLinkous'sûnancial wot'th forthejuryozcout'tto considerissolelythefaultofLinkousand willnotsetveto 25 teducethepunidveawazds.4Indeed,thebutden ofptoving fm ancialwotth ison defendants, asotherwise,ffdefendantsw ould befzee to exercise the strategically logicalchoiceof abstaining from introducing such evidence and then challenging thepropriety ofany substanéalawardpost-verdict.''Ko v.Mcclune,59Va.Cir.74(2002)(ciéngMarkowitzv. Re/MaxPzeferzedPtopetdes,42Va.Cit.292(1997))9Showkerv.Kratzer,77Va.Cit.389 (2009)(nodngthatdefendantshavethegreatestaccesstotheirfmancialinfotmadonandany lack ofevidence regarding financialw orth orhardsllipsw111notserveto reduce purlidve awards).In sum,thepunidvedamagesaward,likethecompensatoryaward,issubstandal,but notso substanéalasto shock theconsçienceofthecourtorsuggestthejurywasinfluenced bypassionorprejudiceorinsomewaymisconceivedormisunderstoodthefactsorthelaw. C. N otw ithstanding the court'sconclusion thatneitherdam agesawatd isexcessiveor deserving ofrenaitdtutunderVirginialaw ,itm ustdeterm ine,by reference to fedetal 4In supportofhism odon forleave to proceed in forma pauperis,T,inlrousincluded in llisapplicadon to the court financialinformadondeclaredlmderpenaltyofpezjurysuggesti ngthatheistmabletosatisfythejudgmentsagainsthim. ECF No.223.' I' heM ancialdisclosuresindicatethatT, inkousreceivedapproximately$13,000in retirementfnnds,most ofwhich heclqim s.wenttowardchild suppoztand payingoffanotlzertm speco eddebt.Tainlrousclqim stohavenoothez assets.In evaluatingtheallegedexcçssivenessofap''nidvedamagesawatd,Vizgizziacourtshaveatlafhrm ativedutyto review thep'lnidvedam agesawarditzlightofthedefendant'sabilitytopayasdeterminedbylziscurrentG ancialworth, measuredassularyplusassets.Showkerv.Kratzer,77Va.Cir.389(2009)(citingPoulstonv.Rock,251Va.254,264, 467S. E.2d479,486(1996).Indeed,ffgejvidenceoftheO ancialcondidonofadefendantisrelevantontheissueof puniti vedamagesandproperlymaybeconsideredbythejurp''HamiltonDev.Co.v.BroadRockClub.lnc.,248Va. 40,44,445S. E.2d140,143(1994)(citingWeatherfordv.Birchett158Va.741,747,164S.E.535,537(1932)).ffln general,p'tnidvedam agesshouldbesufficientto plm ishanddeteradefendantbutshould notbeso izighasto destroy him O anciallp''Showker,77Va.Cir.at389(citingPoulston,251Va.at264,467S.E.2dat486).ffn erefore,pllnidve damagesmustbetailoredwiththenetworthandl'niqueO ancialstamsof( the)defendutinmind,tobestacllievethe desiredpeclaniac effect.''LcLNotwithstanding thedutyon thepartofthecotuttoconsiderthe$250,000p'Anidveaward inlightofTsnkous'abilitytopay,thecoul'tisboundbytherecordbeforethejtuy.The' refoze,despitethefactthat T. inkous'post-ttialM ancialdisclosuressuggestllisinabilityto pay,tlzisinform aéon w asnotentered into evidenceoz otherwiseconsideredbythejuryandthus,consequently,carmotbeconsidezedbythecout't.Coalsonv.Canchola,287 Va.242,251,754S.E.2d525,529(2014)(cidngCondominillm Servs..lnc.v.FirstOwners'Ass' nofFortySLxHtmdred Condo..Inc.,281Va.561,581,709S.E.2d163,175(2011)rf(A defendantwhohasfailedtopresentevidenceofhis abilitytopayattrialjcannotprevailbeforethisCourton(his)cbim thattheamountofplxnidvedamageswouldbe oppressive/l). 26 standardsdeveloped undetRule 59 ofthe FedetalRulesofCivilProcedute,whetheta new ttialshould be ozdeted.AtlasFood S s.& Servs.Inc.v.CtaneN at.V endozs Inc.,99 F.3d 587,594 (4th Cir.1996).UnderRule59oftheFedezalRulesofCivilPtocedute,adisttict courtmaysetasidethejury'sverdictandgtantanew ttialonlyif<r(1)theverdictisagninstthe clearweightoftheevidence,oz(2)isbaseduponevidencewhichisfalse,oz(3)willresultina miscarriageofjusdce,eventhoughthezemaybesubstanéalevidencewllichwouldprevent thedirecdonofaverdict.''Bennett,432F.supp.zdat602(cidngAtlasFoodS s.& Servs. lnc.,99F.3d at594).fçrllo receiveanew ttialon liabilityand damages,thejuryvezdictmust bemadeexcessivebyfpassionandprejudicespringm 'gfrom indulgence,in thejuryroom,in such feelings,gthatjmaynotbecuted byaremitit' ur,butonlyanew tHal.'''Id.at602 (quodngFordMotoêCo.v.Mahone,205F.2d267,273(4thCir.1953)). Importantly,becausçthereisnoevidencethatthejurywasswayedbypassionor prejudice,anew trialwould beinappropriateevenifthecotuthad foundthedamagesawards excessive.1d.at603rfhM ithoutadditionalevidenceofpassionandprejudicebythejury,an excessiveverdictaloneisinsufhcienttoreqllireanew t. rial.?).Notonlyisthecotutunableto discernanyevidenceofpassionozprejudice,butLinkousalsofailstodirectthecoutt's attention to anysuchinfluenceon thejury.Instead,hezeliesentirely on unsupported, conclusory assertions,asw ellason alleged errotsofthecourtpresiding overtheproceeding. W hatism ore,thesubstandalsize ofthe awardsalone doesnotm andate anew trial.1d.at604 (adopdngTftheprew ilingview ...thatthesheersizeofajuryawarddoesnot,byitself, demonstzatethatitwastheresultofpassion orprejudice,''especiallyffgiventhelackofa 27 palpableobjecévestandardintheFourthCitcuitbywlaichtomeastueawardsforpain, suffering,and emoéonaldistress'). Futtlaetmote,asdiscussedatlengthinfra,thejktty'sawardsarenotagainsttlaecleat w eightofthe evidence.Linkoussexually assaulted and battered Clehm twicein hetplaceof em ploym ent.Viewed in thelightm ostfavozableto Clehm ,thetesdm ony suggeststhatshe suffered fzom severe em oéonaltraum a asaresultofLinkous'conductand thatthisttallm a persisted overan extended petiod ofHm e.The courtcannotconcludethatthetestim ony and evidenceadducedattrialisinsufhcienttosupportthejudgments.Taitnkousdoesnotcbim that theverdictsw ere based on falseevidence,and nothingin the colzrt'sreview oftherecord suggeststhe awe dswerebased on falseevidence,thereby leaving the second prong unfulx ed.Lastly,allowingfortheawardstostandwillnotzestzltinamiscatriageofjusdce. Therecotdreflectsthatthejury'sawardscomportwit.hthecourt'sinstrucdonsregarding com pensatory and punitive dam ages,and the2:1rado between the respecdve aw ardsfalls within theconsdtudonally acqeptablerange,and thusisnotffunreasonable otstrikingly outof proportion.''Baldwin,273Va.at659,643S.E.2dat707.Thejuryhadsufhcientevidence beforeitto conclude thatLinkousproxim ately caused severe em odonalharm ,and the court haspreviouslyconcludedthatthedamagesthejuryawardedwerenotexcessive.Thus, Linkousfailsto m eetthe thitd prong.In s'lm ,therecord containssuffciented dence suppoe ng thejury'sawards,thereisno clnim thattheevidenceptoduced attdalisfalse,and theawardsare notsttilcingly outofpropordon such thatthey failto com pottwith due process.The factsand circum stancesofthiscase do notw arrantanew trial,therefore Linkous'm odon istherefore D EN IED . 111. Inthealtetnadve,Linkousmovesfozzeliefftom thejudgmenttendetedinthiscase ptusuanttoRule606$(6)oftheFederalRulesofCivilPtocedute,proffelingthesame groundsasthosein hism otion foranew trialunderRule 59.FederalRtzle ofCivilPzocedtue 60$)authorizesaclisttictcourttogzantrelieffrom afmaljudgmentforfiveenllmetated reasonsorforf'anyotherreasonthatjustisesrelief''Fed.R.Civ.P.60q$(6).O ethis catchallprovision includesfew texttzallim itations,itscontextreqlliresthatitm ay beinvoked onlyinTfextraordinarycircumstances7'whenthereason forrelieffrom judgmentdoesnotfall withinthelistofenllmeratedreasonsgiveninRule60$)(1)-(5).SeeLil'eber v.Health Servs.Ac tzisiéon Co .,486U.S.847,863 n.11,864 (1988).Indeed,in addidon to the explicitlystated requirementsabove,theFourth Citcuitrequiresfrom theparty flling tie modonapreliminaryshowingof:(1)Hmeliness,(2)ameritoriousclsim ozdefense,(3)lack ofprejudicetotheopposingparty,and(4)excepdonalc/cumstances.See e..,Hemanv. M.L.Mkt.Co.,116F.3d91,94n.3(4thCit.1997);Hollandv.Vir'niaLeeCo.,188F.R.D. 241,252 (W.D.Va.1999)(<Toramovant'scaseto succeed,thematetialoffered in support ofhisRule60q$(6)motionmustbeN ghlyconvincinp'').Ifthesethresholdrequirements aremet,onlythendoesthecotutexaminewhetheranyotherreasonjusdûesreliefunder Rule609$(6).Dowellv.StateFarm Fire& Cas.Auto.Ins.Co.,993F.2d46,48(4thCir. 1993).Ifamovantseeksrelieffrom judgmentbased on Rule604$(6),hemustshow thatllis reason forseeking reliefcould nothave been addressed on appealinstead.Aikensv.In am , 652F.3d496,500-01(4thCir.2011)(quodngLiljeberg,486U.S.at863n.11(1988))9see enerall 11 CharlesAlan W right,At-thtu R.M iller& M aryK ay K ane,FederalPracdceand 29 Procedurej2864,at359-60& n.25(2ded.1995)(collecdngcasesl.sItiswellestablished thatgtantingteliefftom judgmentpm suanttoRule60$)isamattetcommittedtothe disczeéon ofthe districtcom t.SeeU nivezsalFilm Exchan es Inc.v.Lust,479 F.2d 573, 576(4th Cir.1973). Linkouscontendsthathedeservesteliefftom judgmentfozallthesamereasonshe averredasgroundsostensiblyjustifyinganew trial.However,evenifthecourtwereto assum e thatLinkousm eetsalltheFourth Citcuit'stlueshold requirem ents,hehasfailed to demonsttateanyTfextraorclinarycitcumstances''underRule60q$(6).W hilethelegaltheories within Linkous'pcq K m odonsaredifficultto discetn,courtstradidonallyview pro se - pleatlingswithffspecialjudicialsolicitudç.''Seee.g.,Harrisonv.U.S.PostalService,840F.2d 1149,1152(4thCir.1988);Hainesv.Kerner,404U.S.519,520(1972)9seealsoSmit.hv. Smith,589 F.3d 736,738(4th Cir.2009)rtiberalcons% ctionofthepleaHingsis pnrlicularlyappropriatewheze...thereisapzo secomplaintraising civilrightsissues.'). H owever,therequirem entofliberalconstrucdon doesnotm ean thatthe couttcan ignorea clearfaillzre in the pleading to allege factswhich setfort.h a clnim cognizablein a fedetal clisttictcouzt.W ellerv.De 'tofSoc.Servs.,901F.2d387(4thCit.1990).Here,Linkous' clnim snm ountto little m oze than bald asserdonsand unsubstantiated conclusions,and the courtcannotm ake Linkous'argum entsforhim .Thisisespecially truewhete,ashete,the apertureforreliefundetRule60q$(6)isextremelynarrow.Inshort,Linkous'modonfot relieffrom judgmentispredicatedupon:(1)thecourt'sderlialofhismodon to continue, 5chiefJusdceRelmquistnotedinllisseparateopinionitzLil'eber v.HealthSerdcesAcuisidonCo ordonthat, ïfgtjhisverystzictinterpretadonofRule60$)isessendaliftheftna11t),ofjudgmentsistobepreserved.TogiveRule 60@ (6)broadapplicadonwouldtmderminenllmerousothernzlesthatfavorthegzzalityofjudgments....''486U.S.at 873gkelmquist,C. J.,clissent ing). ECFNo.198,whichhecontendspreventedhim from Tfproperlyassistlingl''in ilisdefenseat trial,ECF No.225,at2-3,(2)hisinabilitytohaveffregularandfrequent''communicadon withSttelka,Id.at2,(4)hisinabilitytoTfzeasonablypzepatefozttial,''ECFNo.227,at1-2, and(4)prejudiceresuldngllisbeingteqllitedtoparécipateinthettialftom acorrecdonal facility.ECF N o.227,at1-2.The courthasalzeady ad/ essed m ostofLinkous'azgum ents infra,and atthe risk ofretreading o1d gtouhd,witlbriefly addtesseach ofllisclnim sin tutn. Linkous'fltstthreeclaimswillbeaddressedcollecdvely,andfourthTfptejudice'?clnim separately. A. W ith respectto thecourt'sderlialofthem odon to cone ue,Linkousdoesnot speciûcally allegehow the court'sdenialofhiseleventh-houtm oéon to coninue consdtm es an ffexttaotdinarycircumstance''warrane grelieffrom judgment.Instead,hereliesonvague and conclusory statem entsabouthisabstractneed form oretim ewithout,forexam ple, giving exam plesofthe defensesthatcould have been asserted oridendfying potenéal witnesseshecould have called ifgiven additionalfim e to do so,orindicadng how the substance oftheittestim ony would have changed the outcom eofthe case.Linkous'vague allegadon thathewasffdettied areasonableopportunityto prepare''and wasunableto adequately commulcatewith hisguazdian adlitem do notsufûceto show hèwasprejudiced by the lack ofaddidonaltim eto prepare.Linkousm oved to condnue the ttialfourm onths afterhewasnodhed ofthetdaldateand justoneweekbeforethetdalwasdueto com m ence.Therecord indicatesthatStrelkaw asappointed by the courtto serve asLinkous' guardian ad litem and flled a noéceofappeatance two yearsand fourm onthsbeforetdal. W hatismore,Linkous'liabilitywasestablishedandtheonlyissuebeforethejulyconcerned theplaindff'sdam ages.In otlaerw otds,the casewasnotpatdcktlarly com plex,lasting less than one day and involved only m odestdiscovery.SeeU nited Statesv.Bush,820 F.2d 858, 860-61(7thCit.1987)(holdingthatthedistrictcokutdidnotabuseitsdisctedonindenying a conénuancewhen the defendanthad three m onthsto ptepate fota sim ple case,w1t11one . defendant,in attialthatlasted thteedays).lndeed,Linkousreptesentedto thecouttthathe was fully sadshed with Strelka'srepresentadon ofhim and did nottaise any ofthe aforem entioned issuesatG AIorreassettany ofthe concernscontained in the m odon to conénuewllich thecourtdenied.W ithoutaclearerexplanadon from Linkousofwhat,if any,hardship accm ed asaresultofthecourt'srefusalto grantthecontinuancein queséon, thecourtcannotconcludethathewasprejudicedbysaidrefusal. B. W ithrespecttoLinkous'sclnim thathewasffoverlyprejudiced''bybeitagreqllitedto pne cipatein hiscivilttialftom ptison,the cotzttacknowledgesatthe outsetthatideally,of course,Linkousw ould haveappeared in person.M uham m ad v.W arden,Baltim ote CityIail, 849F.2d107,111-12(4th Cir.1988)(explainingthatTTlnjotonlytheappearancebutthe realityofjusticeisobviouslythreatened''byaninmate'sabsencefotllisownttiall.However, an incarcerated lidgant'srightto bepresentatthetrialofacivilacdon isnotabsolute.That rightisqualified by Tfcountervailing consideradonsofexpense,sectuity,logisdcs,and docket controlthatpreventaccorcling prisonersany absoluterightto be present.''M uham m adv. W arden.BaltimoreCitylail,849F.2d107,111-12(4thCir.1988)(citingPricev.Johnston, 334U.S.266,285-86(1948)(incarcetation isavalid basisforqualifyingtherightpersonally 32 toplead andmanageone'sown causein federalcourtl);seealso W olffv.McDonnell,418 U.S.539,576(1974).TheFollrfhCitcuithasheldthatdisttictcourtsshouldconsider,ata minimum,(1)whethertheprisoner'spresencewillsubstanéally flat'fhertheresoludon ofthe case,and whetheralternadvewaysofproceeling,such asttialon depositions,offeran acceptablealteznative;(2)theexpenseandpotenéalsecut'ityriskentailedinttanspoongand holding theprisonerin custody forthedutation ofthetdal;and (3)thelikelihoodthatastay penclingtheprisoner'steleasewillprejudicetheplainéff'sopportazrtitytopresentllisorher cbim ,orthedefendant'srightto aspeedy resoludon ofthe cbim .H awksv.Tim m s,35 F.Supp.2d 464,465-466(D.Md.1999)(cidngMuhapmad,849F.2d at107).Ultimately,itis within the discredon ofthe courtto dete= ine whetherincarcerated civilEdgantsshould be presentorotherwisettansported forttial.M uhammad,849F.2d at112.<<(Fjfsecudng the pdsoner'spzesence,atllisown orpublicexpense,isdetet-m ined to beinfeasibley''thecolitt m ustconsiderdfotherreasonably available alternaéves.''Edw ardsv.Lo an,38 F.Supp.2d 463,467 (W.D.Va.1999)(cidngMuhammad,849F.2d at111,113);Joynetv.Byington,No. 7:15CV00526,2017WL 807208,at*1(W.D.Va.Mat.1,2017). Ptocuring Linkous'physicalpresence attrialorconénlzing the ttialuntllhisrelease wereinfeasible opdons.Linkouswasincarcetated atFCIButnerin N orth Carolina,outof thedisttictand severalho< sfrom the place oftdalin Roanoke,Virginia.M oreover,because Linkousstillhad 11yearsofprison tim eto serve atthe Hm eoftdal,a stay wasnot appropriate.Given thatthe casew aslim ited to theissue ofClehni'sdam ages,logisdcs, secudty,and expenseplninly outweighed Linkous'interestin being presentattrial,given the availability ofvideo conferencing.Indeed,Linkousdid notexpressanyintenéon to tesdfy at 33 ttial.AIIAhingsconsidered,Linkous'pqtticipadon in thettialviavideo confetencing ftom his placeofincatcetation w asthe m ostteasonable opdon.SeeM ontesv.Rafalow ski,N o.C 09- 0976RMW ,2012W L 2395273,at*2(N.D.Cal.June25,2012)Soldingthatdespitesome dtawbacks,Tfvideoconferencing nonetheiessfacilitatesploinéff'sm eaningfulparécipadon at tzial:plaindffisabletotesdfy,pzesenteddence,andlookeachjurorintheeye);United Statesv.Baket,45F.3d 837,843(4th Cit.1995)9seealsoEdwards,38F.Supp.2d at467-68 (holdingthat<fwithvideoconfetencing,gplaintifflwillbevittazallyptesentathisttialandwill havetheabilitytoconfrontwimesses,addtessthejuty,andpardcipatefully''). The cout'thad successfully utilimed video conferencing forptettialproceedings, evidendaryheatings,andwitnesstestimonyforjuryttialsinthepast.Uponinqtu'ry,thecourt wasadvised thatofficialsatFC1ButneritzN 0:th CarolinawhereLinkouswasconfined were willingand ableto arrangeforllispaldcipaéonin thettialviavideo conferenciné.OnM ay8, 2018,m orethan threem ontisbeforetdal,thecourtentered an ordetdirecdngthew arden ofFC1Butnerto m ake Linkousavailableby video conference fortdaland Glt-therditected theW arden to appointa counselororothercorrectionaloffketto serv' e asa designated contactforthecourtroom clerk to iniéate thevideo conference.ECF N o.190.Linkous zaisednoHmelyobjectiontothisorder,insteadmovingtocondnuethecaseaweekbefore trial.Linkouswaspresentbyvideo confezence forthe ene ettial.Further,Linkouswas com petently represented by lliscourt-appointed guardian ad litem ,Thom asStrelka,w ho provided lnim with extensive assistancethtoughoutthelidgation process.Strelka,assisted by NorvellW inston W est,Esq.,receivedresponsesto cliscoveryrequests,filedjtuyinsttucdons and pte-ttialm otions,and m anaged ptettialdisclosureson Linkous'behalf.H ealso served as Linkous'trialcounsel,presendng opening and closing statem ents,ctoss-exam ining witnesses,andobjecdngatvariouspointstotestimonyandtheadmissibilityofvatious exllibits.ln othezworzs,despitehisphysicalabsence,Linkouswasstillableto appearand waseffecévelyrepresented O oughoutthe ttial.Therecord also dem onstratesthatLinkous wasable to conferwith hisguardian ad litem privately atvadouspointsdllring the tdal. Again,Linkousneverasked to testify atttial.Therefore,asto Linkous'clnim thatllis incarceradonandinabilitytoappearinpersonwereprejudicialtohisinterestsattrial,the courtfindsno evidence oftbisin therecord. In s'um , Linkoushasfailed to provide supportorexpbin in any detaillzisconclusory allegaéonconteséngthejurfsverdictsinthiscase.Thecourt'sownzeflecdononthetrial and thorough review oftherecord lead itto concludethatLinkous'asseo onsatewithout merit,andnothinginhismodonoffersaffreasonjusdfyingrelief''ftom judgmentas requiredbyRule609$(6).Fortheforegoingreasons,Linkous'modon forrelieffrom judgmentisDEN IED. 1V. Fotthesereasons,the cout. tV IID EN Y Linkous'm odon for anew trial,ECF N o. 224,pursuanttoRule59,andlzismodonforreheffrom judgment,ECFNo.226,pursuant toiule60q$(6)oftheFedezalRulesofCivilProcedure. A n appropdate O rderwillbe entered thijday. Entered: /'a- .-ft/ -- z g rz /+/ *'V . r. V . . ;. . M ichaelF. Clnief , . '. ' . , i . ' l'.-',' '',.''' ans ' ted StatesDisttictludge
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
