Anne Anderson, et al. v. Cryovac, Inc., et al.; Anne Anderson, et al. v. Beatrice Foods Co.

Summary

The First Circuit reviewed consolidated appeals arising from toxic-tort litigation concerning contamination of municipal water wells in Woburn, Massachusetts. The court considered the effect of special interrogatories under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49(a), waiver of objections to compound interrogatories, the district court’s authority to make supplemental factual findings, and the clearly erroneous standard of review. It affirmed the use of a Rule 49(a) finding concerning groundwater flow to resolve the plaintiffs’ claims against Beatrice Foods.

Holdings

1. When a special verdict omits a material factual issue and the parties acquiesced in the omission, Rule 49(a) permits the district court to make a finding on the omitted issue, provided the court does not resolve an issue withdrawn from the jury by a prior directed verdict.
2. A district court's factual findings under Rule 49(a) are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard applicable to findings made after a bench trial.
3. The finding that plaintiffs failed to prove that contaminants from Beatrice's 15-acre site reached Wells G and H was sufficient to dispose of plaintiffs' tort claims against Beatrice because migration from the alleged source to the wells was a necessary causal link.
4. Failure to disclose or produce responsive discovery materials may constitute misconduct under Rule 60(b)(3) even without fraudulent or nefarious intent, including in appropriate circumstances an accidental or careless omission.
5. To obtain relief under Rule 60(b)(3) for discovery misconduct, the movant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that misconduct occurred and must show that the misconduct substantially interfered with the ability to fully and fairly prepare for and present the case; the movant need not prove that the suppressed evidence would probably have changed the verdict.
6. When discovery material is knowingly or deliberately concealed, the court may presume that the concealment substantially interfered with the movant's preparation and presentation; the presumption is rebuttable by clear and convincing evidence that the material was inconsequential.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court properly used Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49(a) to make a factual finding concerning groundwater flow after the jury's compound special interrogatory did not clearly resolve that issue.
2. Whether plaintiffs waived objection to the form of the special interrogatory by affirmatively approving it and failing to object before the jury was discharged.
3. Whether the district court's Rule 49(a) finding that plaintiffs had not proved that contaminants from Beatrice's 15-acre site reached Wells G and H was clearly erroneous.
4. Whether nondisclosure of the hydrogeologic report constituted misconduct under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3).
5. Whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing to inquire into defense counsel's knowledge and intent concerning the nondisclosure and by denying Rule 60(b)(3) relief without determining whether the nondisclosure substantially interfered with plaintiffs' ability to pursue a tannery-contamination theory.

Disposition

remanded