JAMES O. BROWNING, District Judge.
This case concerns a lawsuit that Guidance Endodontics, a small endodontic-equipment company, brought against the Defendants, who are both Guidance Endodontics's rivals and its suppliers. More background on the lawsuit generally is set forth in the Court's earlier opinions. See, e.g., Guidance Endodontics, LLC v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc., 633 F.Supp.2d 1257, 1260-65 (D.N.M.2008) (Browning, J.); Memorandum Opinion and Order, filed March 30, 2011, 2011 WL 1330781 (Doc. 629). The Court will not recite the case's factual background here.
On November 21, 2008, Guidance Endodontics filed a Verified Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial. In the Complaint, Guidance Endodontics made seven claims for relief: (i) breach of contract based on the Defendants' refusal to supply obturators, see Complaint ¶¶ 158-68, at 30-31; (ii) breach of contract based on the Defendants' refusal to supply endodontic files, see Complaint ¶¶ 169-79, at 31-32; (iii) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, see Complaint ¶¶ 180-87, at 32-33; (iv) violation of the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act, see Complaint ¶¶ 188-97, at 33-34; (v) violation of the NMUPA, see Complaint ¶¶ 198-207, at 34-35; (vi) violation of § 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act, see Complaint ¶¶ 208-16, at 35-36; and (vii) tortious interference with existing and prospective contractual relations, see Complaint ¶¶ 217-26, at 36-37. On the way to trial, the Court dismissed several of these claims.
The Court presided over a three-week jury trial of this case from Monday, September 21, 2009 through Thursday, October 8, 2009. See Clerk's Minutes at 1, filed September 21, 2009 (Doc. 439). After deliberations in this case, the jury awarded $4.08 million in compensatory damages, $200,000.00 in nominal damages, and $40 million in punitive damages in favor of Guidance Endodontics and against the Defendants. See Redacted Jury Verdict, filed October 9, 2009 (Doc. 441). The jury also awarded $93,000.00 in compensatory damages in favor of the Defendants and against Guidance Endodontics for false advertising. See Redacted Jury Verdict at 8. Based on the jury's verdict, the Court entered a net judgment in Guidance Endodontics's favor in the amount of $44,216,232.88, together with post-judgment interest thereon. See Amended Final
The Defendants move the Court to stay judgment pending resolution of the post-trial motions. Guidance Endodontics agrees to this stay. The Defendants further request that the Court waive the requirement that they post a bond securing the judgment while the Court decides the post-trial motions. Guidance Endodontics objects to this request, and requests that the Court order the Defendants to post a bond for the full damages the jury awarded.
At the hearing, the Defendants noted that, if the Court did not decide their request to waive the bond before deciding the post-trial motions before it, their request would be moot. See Transcript of Hearing at 328:21-23 (executed September 2, 2010) (Radzely) ("Tr.") ("[R]elatively soon this motion will be moot if you just don't rule on it and . . . rule on the other motions first."). They further represented that, because they sought only to forgo the bond during the pendency of the post-trial motions, once the Court decided those motions, the Defendants would have to post a bond to stay the Court's judgment pending appeal. See Tr. at 328:15-20 (Radzely) ("If you just did nothing and rendered a decision . . . and we appealed at that point, the automatic stay would kick in only if we were to post a bond or come back and seek relief from you. . . ."). The Defendants also requested that, if the Court requires them to provide security, they be permitted to submit a letter of credit in place of a bond for the remitted amount. See Tr. at 327:24-328:3 (Radzely). Guidance Endodontics opposed allowing the Defendants to file a letter of credit, noting that banks may fail. See Tr. at 331:10-16 (Flynn). Guidance Endodontics further requested that the bond be for the full jury award and not just the remitted amount. See Tr. at 333:17-23 (Flynn).
"The district court may only stay execution of the judgment pending the disposition of certain post-trial motions or appeal if the court provides for the security of the judgment creditor." Peacock v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 349, 359 n. 8, 116 S.Ct. 862, 133 L.Ed.2d 817 (1996). Rule 62(b) states:
Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(b). Similarly, Rule 62(d) allows a party to stay the execution of a judgment, but expressly conditions the stay on the filing of a supersedeas bond that is acceptable to the court:
Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(d).
In most cases, a court sets the amount of the bond to cover the full judgment, including costs, interest, and damages for delay. See Strong v. Laubach, 443 F.3d 1297, 1299 (10th Cir.2006); Olcott v. Del. Flood Co., 76 F.3d 1538, 1559 (10th Cir.1996). However, in "unusual circumstances"
Because the parties agree that the Court should stay judgment pending the Court's resolution of the post-trial motions, the Court grants the stay. Because the Court has decided all of the post-trial motions before it, and the Defendants requested only that the Court waive the bond during the pendency of the post-trial motions, the Court dismisses the Defendants request that it forgo the bond as moot. Moreover, if the Defendants appeal the remitted judgment, the Defendants must enter a bond to stay the Court's judgment pending appeal. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 62(d).