Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Utah denied Paul G. Amann’s motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. A jury had found for the Office of the Utah Attorney General on Amann’s breach-of-contract and Utah Whistleblower Act claims arising from his termination. The court rejected challenges concerning evidentiary rulings, the weight of the evidence, and the quashing of a trial subpoena, concluding that no prejudicial error or basis for a new trial had been shown.
Court
United States District Court for the District of Utah
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the District of Utah
Decision date
March 31, 2026
Docket number
2:18-cv-00341-JNP
Disposition
other
Questions Presented
- Whether the court's evidentiary rulings regarding comparator evidence, other anonymous packets, and testimony concerning Amann's GRAMA requests warranted a new trial under Rule 59.
- Whether the jury's verdict for the Office on Amann's breach-of-contract claim was clearly, decidedly, or overwhelmingly against the weight of the evidence.
- Whether the jury's verdict for the Office on Amann's Utah Whistleblower Act claim was clearly, decidedly, or overwhelmingly against the weight of the evidence.
- Whether testimony concerning Poulson's personal history created a gross injustice warranting a new trial despite Amann's failure to object at trial.
- Whether quashing Amann's trial subpoena for Attorney General Reyes was erroneous and prejudicial.
Holdings
- The challenged evidentiary rulings did not warrant a new trial because the court acted within its discretion, the challenged evidence was properly limited or relevant, and any possible errors were harmless and did not affect Amann's substantial rights.
- The verdict for the Office on Amann's breach-of-contract claim was not clearly, decidedly, or overwhelmingly against the weight of the evidence, so Amann was not entitled to a new trial.
- The verdict for the Office on Amann's Utah Whistleblower Act claim was not against the weight of the evidence because the jury could reasonably find that Amann was terminated for sending the NCFI packet and violating workplace policies rather than for protected whistleblower activity.
- Quashing the trial subpoena for Reyes did not warrant a new trial because Amann failed to show that Reyes's testimony was essential or unavailable from alternative sources, and he failed to establish prejudice.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…