CONCORD, N.H. (Legal Newsline) - The plaintiffs attorney suing a gun manufacturer over alleged accidental discharges botched his strategy after a jury ruled against his client, SIG Sauer is claiming.
A New Hampshire federal jury ruled for SIG Sauer in July, and Judge Landya McCafferty refused to overturn the verdict in September. The decisions were bad news for plaintiff Kyle Guay, who claims the P320 pistol went off with out the trigger being pulled and shot him in the leg.
Lawyer Jeffrey Bagnell motioned for a new trial on Oct. 11 but withdrew it after SIG Sauer noted it was filed 32 days after the entry of judgment - four days after the deadline.
Next, Bagnell sought relief from the judgment by arguing it contained significant factual errors. He says McCafferty was wrong to decide Guay did not rely on two SIG Sauer press releases that persuaded him there were no safety concerns and there was no reason to issue a recall.
"Here, Plaintiff has merely restyled his motion to amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) as a motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(1) to benefit from Rule 60(b)’s less restrictive time requirements, as evidenced by functionally identical factual narratives in both of his motions describing the alleged 'errors of fact' made by the Court," the company's attorneys wrote on Nov. 7.
"In other words, having inexplicably missed the deadline to file a Rule 59(e) motion, Plaintiff is attempting to bring the same motion under Rule 60(b)(1). This is precisely the type of Rule 60(b)(1) motion the First Circuit has rejected on the grounds that it would subvert the goals of expediency and finality intended by Rule 59(e)."
Guay’s lawsuit said he had a SIG Sauer P320 in its holster in January 2020. As he removed the holster from his waistband, the gun fired, he claimed, allowing a hollow point bullet to pierce his right thigh. The incident caused nerve damage, his suit said.
SIG Sauer has sued Bagnell in Connecticut federal court, alleging a video on his website and on YouTube has a computer-generated animation about an alleged defect in the P320 that causes it to fire on its own. The case says the video incorrectly depicts the gun’s design and makes claims about its mechanics that are physically impossible.
The American Civil Liberties Union is filing an amicus brief in the case to defend Bagnell's First Amendment rights.
"At the preliminary injunction stage, the risk of unfounded judicial censorship is simply too great for the First Amendment to bear. SIG argues that its requested injunction does not implicate this aspect of the bar on prior restraints because, according to SIG, Mr. Bagnell’s display of the Animation constitutes commercial speech," the brief says.
"Even if a less stringent prior restraint test applies to commercial speech, however, the values underlying the bar on prior restraints counsel strongly against SIG’s requested preliminary injunction."