Cooper v. Meritor, Inc., 4:16-CV-52-DMB-JMV. (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. Mississippi
Number: infdco20190329e91
Visitors: 12
Filed: Mar. 28, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2019
Summary: ORDER DEBRA M. BROWN , District Judge . On August 15, 2018, the defendants in this environmental litigation, citing the high-profile nature of this case, filed a motion asking the Court to "(1) empanel a larger-than-normal venire, (2) exclude Grenada County from the venire, (3) use a pre-venire jury questionnaire, and (4) provide each party with additional peremptory strikes." Doc. #778 at 2. Additionally, the motion seeks a district-wide venire "[i]f the Court does not believe that these
Summary: ORDER DEBRA M. BROWN , District Judge . On August 15, 2018, the defendants in this environmental litigation, citing the high-profile nature of this case, filed a motion asking the Court to "(1) empanel a larger-than-normal venire, (2) exclude Grenada County from the venire, (3) use a pre-venire jury questionnaire, and (4) provide each party with additional peremptory strikes." Doc. #778 at 2. Additionally, the motion seeks a district-wide venire "[i]f the Court does not believe that these t..
More
ORDER
DEBRA M. BROWN, District Judge.
On August 15, 2018, the defendants in this environmental litigation, citing the high-profile nature of this case, filed a motion asking the Court to "(1) empanel a larger-than-normal venire, (2) exclude Grenada County from the venire, (3) use a pre-venire jury questionnaire, and (4) provide each party with additional peremptory strikes." Doc. #778 at 2. Additionally, the motion seeks a district-wide venire "[i]f the Court does not believe that these tools will be successful in empaneling an impartial jury." Id. The plaintiffs did not respond to the motion or to the memoranda the defendants filed in support.1
As an initial matter, the Court notes that pre-venire exclusion of Grenada County residents is inappropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1863(b)(3) (district jury plan must "ensure that each county . . . within the district . . . is substantially proportionally represented"). Accordingly, to the extent the motion seeks such relief, it will be denied. However, given the publicity associated with this litigation, the Court concludes that the remaining safeguards sought by the defendants are appropriate and necessary for ensuring an impartial jury. Accordingly:
1. The defendants' motion to protect jury selection [778] is GRANTED in Part and DENIED in Part.
2. The Court will draw a district-wide venire of at least three times the normal size.
3. The Court will utilize a pre-venire jury questionnaire.2
4. The parties will be entitled to additional peremptory strikes, with the precise number to be determined at a later date.3
FootNotes
1. The defendants filed an initial memorandum and later sought, and received, leave to file a supplemental memorandum. See Doc. #854. The order granting leave to supplement provided the plaintiffs an opportunity to respond. Id.
2. The parties must submit a joint proposed jury questionnaire no later than five (5) weeks before trial.
3. The defendants did not seek a specific number of peremptory strikes in their motion.
Source: Leagle
