Virginia Lawyers Weekly VA Lawyers Weekly
Where a party who is appealing certain district court decisions ordered the necessary portions of the trial transcript for her appeal, she was not required to include the entire trial transcript.
Background
Following a two-day jury trial in early August 2022, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Rebecca Reid and found she was not liable for constructive fraud. Marcia Snell, proceeding pro se, filed an appeal in the Fourth Circuit, but the case was remanded to this court for the limited purpose of allowing it to rule on post-judgment motions.
After the court denied her post-judgment motions, Reid filed a cross-appeal in the Fourth Circuit. Snell has now filed a motion to compel Reid to order a complete jury trial transcript for the record of the cross-appeal, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(b)(3)(C).
Reid argues that all evidence, testimony, statements and court decisions made or presented during trial are necessary for Reid’s cross-appeal of the court’s rulings on defendant’s oral motion for judgment as a matter of law and the jury instructions. Reid opposes the motion, arguing that she has ordered the necessary portions of the trial transcript for her cross-appeal.
Analysis
Following the presentation of plaintiff’s evidence, Reid moved for judgment as a matter of law, claiming plaintiff’s evidence failed to show Reid committed constructive fraud. The court took her motion under advisement and then allowed Reid to present her evidence.
For this issue on cross-appeal, the Fourth Circuit would likely need to review plaintiff’s evidence on the issue of Reid’s liability and the parties’ arguments presented prior to the court deciding to take the motion under advisement. Reid has ordered the portion of the transcript reflecting Reid’s oral motion, which includes the parties’ arguments on the motion. She has also ordered the testimonies of all plaintiff’s witnesses. Thus, Reid has ordered the necessary parts of the trial transcript for this issue on cross-appeal.
The court also finds that the issue of whether the court erred in its issuance of the jury instructions does not necessitate the inclusion of the entire trial transcript for the cross-appeal. During trial, Reid objected to the constructive fraud instruction by stating that the “case law is pretty clear that a landlord cannot be responsible for constructive fraud or for a latent defect after possession has been given to a tenant.” Determining whether the court erred in its issuance of the jury instructions therefore is a legal question for the Fourth Circuit and does not necessitate the entire trial transcript.
Additionally, Reid has already ordered the portions of the trial transcript reflecting the parties’ arguments on the proposed jury instructions and the jury instructions given at trial, which are relevant for the Fourth Circuit’s review of this issue.
Motion to compel denied.
Snell v. Reid, Case No. 3:21-cv-24, Jan. 24, 2023. WDVA at Charlottesville (Moon). VLW 023-3-027. 4 pp.
