Manglona denies EEOC’s motion for new trial

The federal court yesterday issued an order that denied the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s motion for a new trial in its sexual harassment lawsuit against the Saipan Grand Hotel that it had accused of subjecting a band singer to a sexually hostile work environment.

U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona also awarded $4,376.25 in costs to Saipan Grand Hotel.

In denying the motion for a new trial, Manglona said Saipan Grand’s disclosure of Melinda Javier as an impeachment witness five days before trial does not warrant a new trial.

“Based on this finding, the court need not address whether the time of disclosure of Javier warrants preclusion of her trial testimony, nor whether this substantially interfered with EEOC’s full and fair presentation of its case at trial,” said Manglona in a 20-page order.

On Dec. 20, 2011, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Grand Hotel.

Last January, EEOC filed the motion for a new trial. Li asserted that the defendants’ late disclosure of Javier as a trial witness substantially interfered with the EEOC’s fair presentation of its case.

In defendants’ reply to the motion, attorney Steven P. Pixley said Manglona permitted the testimony of Javier subject to well-reasoned parameters surrounding the scope of her employment.

The district court, Pixley said, has broad discretion in permitting or excluding the testimony of witnesses not appearing on witness lists.

Pixley asserted that EEOC’s assault on Javier’s credibility is not supported by evidence.

The defendants then moved for an award of costs in the amount of $18,824.21 that they had incurred in defending the lawsuit.

EEOC, however, objected and asked the court to deny the request of award in its entirety. In the alternative, EEOC asked the court to reduce the requested award to only $4,697.64.

On the motion for a new trial, Manglona said the fact that band singer Michelle Bunoan and former Grand Hotel restaurant manager Roberto Alegre made “eye-to-eye contact” is impeachment evidence against Bunoan’s statement that she did not do anything to make Alegre think that she was interested in him.

“As Javier’s testimony concerned evidence contradicting the statement made by Bunoan at trial, it was admissible as impeachment by contradiction,” Manglona said.

The judge agreed that Javier’s testimony was impeachment testimony.

Manglona said Javier’s testimony was used to impeach Bunoan with respect to her assertion that she did not have a romantic relationship with Alegre.

Manglona said because Javier was an impeachment witness, she did not need to be disclosed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26.

On costs issue, Manglona said the EEOC’s request to deny all costs to the prevailing defendants “is not well-taken.”

Manglona awarded the defendants $25 for process service fee, $117.60 for copying and printing costs of documents produced in discovery, $4,193.63 for deposition expenses, and $40 for the expert witness fee, or for a total of $4,376.25.