Motions for a New Trial

Motions for a New Trial

A motion for a new trial is a post-trial motion asking a court to set aside the result of a trial and conduct a new trial because the first trial was affected by a serious legal, evidentiary, procedural, or factual problem.

In federal civil litigation, motions for a new trial are governed primarily by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. The rule permits a court to grant a new trial after a jury trial for grounds recognized by federal law and, in a nonjury case, permits the court to provide appropriate relief, including reopening the judgment, taking additional testimony, or amending findings. The motion generally must be filed no later than 28 days after entry of judgment. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 provides the principal federal framework.

A motion for a new trial is different from Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL). JMOL asks whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support a verdict. A new-trial motion can address a broader range of serious problems with the trial or verdict, including erroneous evidentiary rulings, improper jury instructions, prejudicial misconduct, newly discovered evidence, or a verdict that is against the clear weight of the evidence under the applicable standard.

The remedy is also different. JMOL can result in judgment being entered as a matter of law. A successful motion for a new trial ordinarily means that the parties must try the affected issues again.

---

What Is a Motion for a New Trial?

A motion for a new trial asks the trial court to set aside the result of an already completed trial and order another trial.

The motion is therefore a post-trial remedy.

The basic idea is straightforward:

The first trial produced a result, but a serious problem makes that result unreliable or legally unacceptable, so the case should be tried again.

The problem may involve:

• erroneous admission or exclusion of evidence;
• improper jury instructions;
• misconduct by counsel;
• juror misconduct;
• newly discovered evidence;
• an excessive or inadequate damages award;
• a verdict against the weight of the evidence;
• prejudicial procedural error;
• or another circumstance that makes a new trial necessary.

A new trial does not necessarily mean that the moving party should automatically win.

Instead, the court generally returns the affected matter to the trial stage so that it can be decided again.

---

Rule 59: The Federal Rule Governing New Trials

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 is the principal federal rule governing motions for a new trial.

Rule 59(a)(1) provides that, after a jury trial, the court may grant a new trial for a reason that would historically have justified a new trial in an action at law in federal court.

After a nonjury trial, Rule 59(a)(1)(B) provides for relief based on grounds historically supporting rehearing in an equity case.

The rule also permits a new trial on all or some of the issues and allows relief to be granted to any party.

This flexibility is important.

A court does not necessarily have to erase the entire trial.

If a particular issue can be separated from the remainder of the case, the court may order a new trial limited to that issue.

---

Why Do Courts Grant New Trials?

The purpose of a new trial is not to give a disappointed litigant a second opportunity simply because the first result was unfavorable.

Courts generally require a legally recognized basis for disturbing the verdict.

The underlying concern is whether the original trial produced a result that should not be allowed to stand.

The justification may arise from:

1. an error of law;
2. an evidentiary error;
3. an improper jury instruction;
4. serious misconduct;
5. newly discovered evidence;
6. a verdict unsupported by the evidence under the applicable standard;
7. an excessive or inadequate damages award; or
8. another substantial problem affecting the fairness or reliability of the trial.

The precise standard depends on the ground asserted and the governing federal law.

---

A New Trial Is Different from an Appeal

A motion for a new trial is decided by the trial court.

An appeal is reviewed by an appellate court.

This distinction is fundamental.

After a verdict, a party may ask the trial judge to reconsider whether the trial should stand.

The party may also later seek appellate review.

The two procedures serve different purposes.

The trial judge:

• conducted the trial;
• heard the witnesses;
• observed the proceedings;
• ruled on evidentiary disputes;
• instructed the jury; and
• is therefore positioned to evaluate many alleged trial errors.

An appellate court generally reviews the record rather than conducting a new trial.

A motion for a new trial therefore gives the trial court an important opportunity to correct serious problems before the case proceeds through the appellate process.

---

The 28-Day Filing Deadline

Under Rule 59(b), a motion for a new trial must generally be filed no later than 28 days after entry of judgment.

This is a critical deadline.

It is not simply a recommended period.

Federal post-trial practice contains strict timing rules because post-trial motions can affect the finality of the judgment and the timing of an appeal.

A lawyer considering a new-trial motion therefore needs to determine immediately:

• when judgment was entered;
• what rule governs the proposed motion;
• what deadline applies;
• whether the motion must address a particular issue with specificity; and
• how the motion interacts with the deadline for an appeal.

The Federal Rules also contain provisions governing the effect of timely post-trial motions on appellate deadlines.

---

Grounds for a New Trial

Rule 59 does not provide a closed checklist of every circumstance that can justify a new trial.

Instead, Rule 59(a) incorporates grounds recognized by federal law.

Common grounds include:

• verdict against the weight of the evidence;
• prejudicial evidentiary error;
• erroneous jury instructions;
• improper argument by counsel;
• juror misconduct;
• newly discovered evidence;
• excessive damages;
• inadequate damages;
• serious procedural irregularity; and
• other errors that substantially affected the fairness or integrity of the trial.

The party seeking a new trial must ordinarily identify the specific reason why the first trial should not stand.

---

Verdict Against the Weight of the Evidence

One of the most important grounds for a new trial is that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.

This ground requires careful distinction from JMOL.

JMOL asks whether the evidence was legally sufficient for a reasonable jury to reach the verdict.

A new-trial motion may permit the court, under the applicable standard, to examine the evidence more broadly.

The court may consider whether the verdict is seriously inconsistent with the evidence presented at trial.

This does not mean that the judge simply substitutes personal preference for the jury’s decision.

Federal courts generally recognize that the jury has an important role in resolving factual disputes.

But a trial judge has authority to prevent a verdict from standing when the evidence and circumstances demonstrate that the verdict cannot fairly be maintained under the applicable new-trial standard.

---

JMOL Versus a New Trial Based on the Evidence

The distinction can be summarized as follows:

JMOL

The question is essentially:

Could a reasonable jury legally reach this result on the evidence?

New trial

The question may be:

Does the verdict stand despite a serious problem with the evidence or trial that warrants trying the matter again?

The two inquiries overlap, but they are not identical.

A party may therefore move for JMOL and, in the alternative, seek a new trial.

This is a common post-trial strategy.

---

Prejudicial Errors of Law

A new trial may be appropriate when the court made a significant legal error during the trial.

Examples might include:

• applying the wrong legal standard;
• admitting evidence that should have been excluded;
• excluding evidence that should have been admitted;
• giving an erroneous jury instruction;
• refusing a necessary jury instruction;
• improperly limiting cross-examination;
• allowing improper argument;
• or committing another legal error that materially affected the trial.

Not every error requires a new trial.

Courts distinguish between harmless error and prejudicial error.

An error is generally significant enough to justify a new trial only when it affected the substantial rights of the parties or otherwise undermined the fairness or reliability of the proceeding under the applicable standard.

---

Harmless Error and the Need for Prejudice

The existence of an error does not automatically justify a new trial.

Courts generally ask whether the error was prejudicial.

Suppose a judge mistakenly admits a minor piece of evidence but the evidence has virtually no relationship to the disputed issue and could not reasonably have affected the verdict.

A new trial would ordinarily be difficult to justify on that basis alone.

By contrast, suppose a court excludes critical evidence that directly supports a party’s central claim and the exclusion substantially affects the presentation of the case.

That may provide a much stronger basis for a new trial.

The central concern is therefore not simply:

Was there an error?

but rather:

Did the error materially affect the fairness or outcome of the trial?

---

Erroneous Jury Instructions

Jury instructions tell jurors what legal rules they must apply.

Because instructions define the legal framework for the jury’s deliberations, a serious instructional error can justify a new trial.

Examples include:

• misstating an element of a claim;
• misstating the burden of proof;
• giving an incorrect causation standard;
• omitting an essential legal principle;
• improperly shifting the burden of proof;
• giving an instruction unsupported by the governing law; or
• refusing a legally required instruction.

The exact standard depends on the nature of the alleged error and the applicable federal appellate law.

A party seeking a new trial based on jury instructions must also consider preservation requirements.

If counsel failed to make an appropriate objection when required, appellate and post-trial review may be affected.

---

Evidentiary Errors

Trials depend heavily on the admission and exclusion of evidence.

A court may grant a new trial when an evidentiary ruling was sufficiently serious and prejudicial to affect the fairness of the proceeding.

Potential examples include:

• admitting highly prejudicial evidence;
• excluding critical admissible evidence;
• improperly limiting expert testimony;
• admitting hearsay without a valid basis;
• allowing improper character evidence;
• excluding relevant impeachment evidence; or
• permitting evidence that violated an applicable privilege.

Again, the mere existence of an erroneous ruling does not automatically require a new trial.

The moving party generally must demonstrate why the error mattered.

---

Misconduct by Counsel

Attorney misconduct can sometimes justify a new trial.

Examples may include:

• inflammatory or improper closing argument;
• deliberate misrepresentation of evidence;
• improper appeals to prejudice;
• reference to excluded evidence;
• improper attacks on opposing counsel;
• violation of a court order; or
• other serious conduct that compromises the fairness of the proceeding.

Courts distinguish between ordinary advocacy mistakes and conduct serious enough to undermine the trial.

The context matters.

A single improper statement may not justify a new trial if promptly corrected and harmless.

A repeated and highly prejudicial pattern of misconduct may present a very different situation.

---

Juror Misconduct

A new trial may also be sought because of juror misconduct.

Potential problems include:

• jurors considering information outside the evidence;
• improper communications;
• unauthorized research;
• violations of court instructions;
• undisclosed bias;
• improper influence among jurors; or
• other serious violations of the jury’s duties.

Juror misconduct raises particularly sensitive issues because courts must protect the secrecy and integrity of jury deliberations while also ensuring that verdicts are based on lawful proceedings.

Federal evidence law also places important restrictions on using juror testimony to impeach a verdict.

Accordingly, the procedural route for establishing juror misconduct can be complex.

---

Newly Discovered Evidence

Newly discovered evidence may provide a basis for seeking a new trial.

The concept, however, is narrower than simply discovering evidence that a party wishes it had presented at trial.

The evidence generally must satisfy the applicable federal standard for newly discovered evidence.

Courts commonly consider whether:

• the evidence genuinely qualifies as newly discovered;
• the evidence could not reasonably have been discovered earlier through due diligence;
• the evidence is material;
• the evidence is not merely cumulative; and
• the evidence would probably produce a different result at a new trial.

The precise formulation can vary by jurisdiction and context.

The basic principle is that a party ordinarily cannot deliberately withhold evidence and then obtain a second trial simply because the first trial produced an unfavorable result.

---

Newly Discovered Evidence Versus Evidence That Was Simply Not Presented

These situations are different.

Suppose a party knew about a witness before trial but chose not to call that witness.

After losing, the party cannot ordinarily characterize the witness’s testimony as “newly discovered” merely because the testimony would now be useful.

The rationale is straightforward.

A new trial is not intended to reward a party for failing to exercise reasonable diligence during the original proceeding.

Newly discovered evidence generally concerns evidence that genuinely could not reasonably have been obtained and presented during the first trial.

---

Excessive Damages

A new trial may sometimes be sought because a jury’s damages award is excessive.

This issue can arise in cases involving:

• personal injury;
• wrongful death;
• emotional distress;
• lost income;
• property damage;
• punitive damages; and
• other forms of monetary relief.

The standard for reviewing damages varies substantially by jurisdiction and by type of claim.

Federal courts generally recognize that a damages award should not be disturbed merely because a judge would have awarded a different amount.

The issue is whether the award is so unsupported, excessive, or inconsistent with the governing law that the verdict cannot properly stand.

---

Inadequate Damages

The same principle can operate in the opposite direction.

A plaintiff may argue that the jury awarded inadequate damages.

For example, a jury may find liability but award damages that are legally inconsistent with undisputed evidence of a particular injury or loss.

The court must determine whether the award is legally and factually sustainable.

In some circumstances, a new trial may be ordered on damages alone rather than reopening the entire case.

This is one reason Rule 59’s permission for a new trial on all or some of the issues is important.

---

Partial New Trials

A new trial does not always have to cover the entire case.

Rule 59(a)(1) expressly permits a new trial on all or some of the issues.

For example, suppose:

• liability was properly decided;
• the jury’s liability findings are supported by the evidence; but
• the damages determination was seriously flawed.

If the issues can properly be separated, the court may order a new trial limited to damages.

This is sometimes called a partial new trial.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Gasoline Products Co. v. Champlin Refining Co. is an important historical authority concerning when issues can appropriately be separated for a partial new trial.

The key concern is whether the issues are sufficiently independent that trying one again will not undermine the validity of the issues that remain intact.

---

New Trial After a Nonjury Trial

Rule 59 also applies to nonjury trials, although the mechanism differs from a jury case.

After a bench trial, Rule 59(a)(1)(B) permits relief for grounds that historically would have justified rehearing in an equity case.

Rule 59(a)(2) also gives the court substantial flexibility.

After a nonjury trial, the court may:

• open the judgment;
• take additional testimony;
• amend findings of fact;
• amend conclusions of law;
• make new findings or conclusions; or
• direct entry of a new judgment.

This reflects an important difference between jury and bench trials.

In a jury trial, the court is reviewing a verdict reached by jurors.

In a bench trial, the judge personally made the findings and conclusions.

The Rule 59 framework therefore accommodates the different structure of the proceeding.

---

New Trial Versus Altering or Amending the Judgment

Rule 59 contains another important post-trial mechanism: a motion to alter or amend a judgment.

Under Rule 59(e), such a motion must generally be filed no later than 28 days after entry of judgment.

Although both motions are post-trial remedies, they are not identical.

A motion for a new trial seeks another trial.

A motion to alter or amend asks the court to change the judgment without necessarily requiring another trial.

For example, a party may seek alteration or amendment because the court:

• overlooked controlling law;
• misunderstood an important issue;
• made a manifest legal or factual error;
• or needs to correct the judgment in a legally appropriate way.

The precise standards for Rule 59(e) relief are developed substantially through federal case law.

---

New Trial Versus Rule 60 Relief

Rule 59 should also be distinguished from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, which provides mechanisms for relief from a judgment or order.

The distinction is particularly important for timing.

Rule 59 motions are subject to the strict 28-day period after entry of judgment.

Rule 60 provides different forms of relief and different timing requirements depending on the subsection involved.

A party should therefore not assume that Rule 60 can simply be used as a substitute for an untimely Rule 59 motion.

The choice of post-judgment rule can have major procedural consequences.

---

New Trial Versus Judgment as a Matter of Law

The relationship between Rule 59 and Rule 50 is particularly important.

Judgment as a Matter of Law

Under Rule 50, the central question is whether the evidence provides a legally sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to find for the opposing party.

The court may therefore enter judgment rather than allowing an unsupported verdict to stand.

New Trial

Under Rule 59, the court may order another trial when a serious problem with the trial or verdict warrants doing so.

The possible grounds are broader than simple legal insufficiency.

For example, a party may seek a new trial because of:

• prejudicial evidentiary error;
• improper jury instructions;
• serious attorney misconduct;
• juror misconduct;
• newly discovered evidence; or
• a verdict against the weight of the evidence under the applicable standard.

A party can therefore combine the motions strategically:

First, the evidence was legally insufficient and judgment should be entered as a matter of law.

Alternatively, if the court does not grant JMOL, the serious problems affecting the verdict require a new trial.

---

The Court’s Discretion

Trial courts generally have significant discretion in deciding motions for a new trial.

This does not mean the decision is unlimited.

The court must apply the governing legal standards and provide an adequate basis for its decision.

But the trial judge is uniquely situated to understand:

• what happened during the trial;
• how evidence was presented;
• how objections arose;
• what the jury heard;
• whether an error was corrected;
• and how the alleged problem affected the proceeding.

For this reason, appellate review of new-trial rulings is generally deferential, although the precise standard depends on the issue presented.

---

The Difference Between a New Trial and a Second Chance

A new trial should not be understood as an ordinary second opportunity to present a stronger case.

Civil litigation values finality.

Once a case has been tried and decided, courts generally have an interest in preserving the result unless a legally recognized reason justifies disturbing it.

The moving party therefore needs to identify a substantial problem with the original proceeding.

A party cannot ordinarily obtain a new trial merely because:

• it dislikes the verdict;
• it wishes it had called another witness;
• it would present a different strategy;
• it now has a better litigation theory;
• or the jury chose the opposing party’s evidence.

The purpose of Rule 59 is corrective, not simply repetitive.

---

The Role of the Trial Judge After a Jury Verdict

After a jury returns a verdict, the trial judge has several possible procedural roles.

The judge may:

• enter judgment on the verdict;
• consider a Rule 50 motion;
• consider a Rule 59 motion;
• consider a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend;
• address other properly filed post-trial motions;
• and manage the case for any subsequent proceedings or appeal.

The judge must respect the jury’s role while also ensuring that the judgment rests on a legally sound and fair proceeding.

This is one reason post-trial motions occupy an important place in civil procedure.

The trial does not necessarily represent the absolute end of judicial review at the trial-court level.

---

A Practical Example: Evidentiary Error

Imagine a plaintiff brings a personal-injury lawsuit.

At trial, the plaintiff seeks to introduce a medical record directly relevant to the nature and extent of the injury.

The court excludes the document based on an erroneous interpretation of the applicable evidentiary rule.

The jury then returns a verdict for the defendant.

The plaintiff argues that the excluded evidence was central to proving the injury and that the exclusion materially affected the outcome.

The plaintiff may seek a new trial under Rule 59.

The court would need to consider:

• whether the ruling was actually erroneous;
• whether the evidence was admissible;
• whether the plaintiff properly preserved the objection;
• whether the evidence was material;
• whether other evidence established the same facts;
• and whether the error was sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial.

The mere existence of an incorrect evidentiary ruling would not automatically produce a new trial.

The court must evaluate its significance.

---

A Practical Example: Verdict Against the Evidence

Suppose a plaintiff presents substantial evidence establishing that a defendant’s product caused a particular injury.

Multiple witnesses testify consistently.

Documents support the plaintiff’s account.

Expert evidence supports causation.

The defendant presents little evidence contradicting the plaintiff.

The jury nevertheless returns a verdict that appears fundamentally inconsistent with the evidence.

The plaintiff may seek a new trial on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.

The court’s task is not simply to say:

I would have decided differently.

The court must apply the applicable federal standard and determine whether the verdict is one that should be permitted to stand.

---

A Practical Example: New Evidence

Suppose that after trial, a party discovers a document that was unknown to the party and could not reasonably have been discovered through due diligence before trial.

The document directly contradicts a critical factual premise on which the verdict depended.

The party promptly brings the matter to the court’s attention and demonstrates that the evidence is genuinely new, material, and potentially outcome-changing.

A motion for a new trial may be appropriate if the applicable requirements for newly discovered evidence are satisfied.

By contrast, if the party knew the document existed before trial but simply failed to obtain it, the argument is substantially weaker.

---

A Practical Example: Damages Only

Imagine that a jury properly determines that a defendant is liable for negligence.

The liability evidence is strong and no serious error affected that portion of the trial.

But the jury awards damages based on an evident misunderstanding of an uncontested mathematical calculation.

If the damages issue is legally separable from liability, the court may consider ordering a new trial limited to damages.

This avoids unnecessarily retrying issues that were properly resolved.

Partial new trials therefore serve both fairness and judicial efficiency.

---

The Importance of Preserving Errors

A party generally should raise objections during the trial when the rules require them.

For example, if counsel believes that:

• evidence is inadmissible;
• a jury instruction is erroneous;
• opposing counsel is engaging in improper argument; or
• a procedural ruling is prejudicial,

counsel ordinarily should make an appropriate objection or request at the relevant time.

Post-trial motions are not designed to allow parties to remain silent during the trial and then raise every perceived problem only after an unfavorable verdict.

Preservation rules serve an important purpose:

They give the trial court an opportunity to correct an error before it affects the outcome.

---

Motion for a New Trial and Jury Instructions: A Preservation Example

Suppose counsel believes that the court has misstated the burden of proof in a proposed jury instruction.

The lawyer objects before the jury begins deliberations and explains the legal problem.

The court rejects the objection.

The jury later returns an unfavorable verdict.

The party may then have a preserved basis for seeking post-trial relief and, if necessary, appellate review.

By contrast, if counsel never objected when the opportunity was provided, later review may be governed by a more demanding standard.

The exact consequences depend on the applicable rule and circumstances.

---

Affidavits Supporting a New-Trial Motion

Rule 59(c) addresses affidavits when a motion for a new trial is based on affidavits.

The rule provides that supporting affidavits must be filed with the motion.

The opposing party generally has 14 days after being served to file opposing affidavits, and the court may permit reply affidavits.

This procedure is particularly relevant when the grounds for the motion involve facts outside the existing trial record or other matters appropriately established through sworn statements.

Not every new-trial motion requires affidavits.

Whether they are necessary depends on the basis for the motion.

---

The Court’s Own Initiative

Rule 59(d) permits the court, on its own initiative, to order a new trial no later than 28 days after entry of judgment when a reason exists that would justify granting a new trial on a party’s motion.

The rule also permits the court, after providing notice and an opportunity to be heard, to grant a timely new-trial motion for a reason not stated in the motion.

The court must specify the reasons for its action in its order.

This authority reinforces the trial court’s responsibility for maintaining the integrity of the proceeding.

---

New Trial and Finality

The ability to seek a new trial creates a deliberate tension between two important principles:

accuracy and fairness, on one hand, and finality, on the other.

Courts need mechanisms for correcting serious trial errors.

But litigation cannot continue indefinitely every time a party disagrees with a result.

Rule 59 attempts to balance these interests through:

• defined grounds;
• procedural requirements;
• preservation principles;
• strict timing;
• judicial discretion; and
• appellate review.

The 28-day filing deadline is particularly important because it places a clear temporal boundary around this principal form of post-trial relief.

---

New Trial and Appellate Review

A motion for a new trial can also affect appellate strategy.

A party may need to determine whether an alleged error should first be presented to the district court through a Rule 59 motion before pursuing appellate review.

The interaction between post-trial motions and appellate deadlines can be technically complex.

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4 contains provisions concerning the effect of certain timely post-trial motions on the time to appeal.

Therefore, lawyers should treat Rule 59 deadlines and appellate deadlines as interconnected rather than as completely separate procedural matters.

---

Why Motions for a New Trial Matter

A trial is intended to produce a reliable and legally sound adjudication.

But trials are complex.

Evidence can be wrongly admitted or excluded.

Instructions can contain legal errors.

Counsel can engage in misconduct.

Jurors can encounter improper information.

New evidence can emerge.

And verdicts can sometimes become difficult to reconcile with the evidence presented.

The motion for a new trial provides a mechanism for addressing these problems without requiring every dispute to proceed immediately to an appellate court.

It therefore serves as an important quality-control mechanism within civil litigation.

---

Key Takeaways

• A motion for a new trial asks the court to set aside the result of a trial and conduct another trial.
• Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 is the principal federal rule governing new-trial motions.
• A motion for a new trial generally must be filed no later than 28 days after entry of judgment.
• Rule 59 permits a new trial on all or some of the issues.
• Common grounds include prejudicial legal error, evidentiary error, erroneous jury instructions, misconduct, newly discovered evidence, and a verdict against the weight of the evidence under the applicable standard.
• A new trial is different from Judgment as a Matter of Law.
• JMOL primarily asks whether the evidence was legally sufficient for a reasonable jury to reach the verdict.
• A new-trial motion can address a broader range of problems affecting the fairness or reliability of the trial.
• A new trial is different from an appeal because the motion is initially decided by the trial court.
• A new trial is also different from a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment.
• Newly discovered evidence generally must satisfy demanding requirements concerning diligence, materiality, and likely significance.
• An error generally must be sufficiently prejudicial to justify a new trial; harmless errors do not ordinarily require retrial.
• Courts may sometimes order a partial new trial limited to particular issues, such as damages.
• Rule 59 also provides mechanisms applicable after nonjury trials.
• Preservation of objections during trial can be critical to post-trial and appellate review.
• The trial court has substantial responsibility for determining whether the original trial should stand.
• A new trial is a corrective remedy, not simply a second chance to present a better case.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a motion for a new trial?

A motion for a new trial is a post-trial request asking the court to set aside the result of a trial and conduct another trial because a serious legal, evidentiary, factual, procedural, or other recognized problem affected the original proceeding.

What rule governs motions for a new trial in federal court?

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 governs motions for a new trial in federal civil litigation.

How long do you have to file a motion for a new trial?

Under Rule 59(b), a motion for a new trial generally must be filed no later than 28 days after entry of judgment.

Does a new trial mean the losing party automatically wins?

No. A new trial generally means that the affected issues will be tried again. The outcome of the second trial is not predetermined.

Can a new trial be ordered only on damages?

Yes. Rule 59 permits a new trial on some issues rather than necessarily reopening the entire case, provided the issues can appropriately be separated.

Can a new trial be granted because the verdict was against the evidence?

Yes, under the applicable federal standard, a verdict that is sufficiently contrary to the evidence may provide grounds for a new trial.

Is every trial error enough to obtain a new trial?

No. Courts generally distinguish between harmless and prejudicial errors. The moving party ordinarily must show that the alleged error was sufficiently significant to justify disturbing the result.

Can newly discovered evidence justify a new trial?

Yes, but the requirements are demanding. The evidence generally must genuinely qualify as newly discovered, could not reasonably have been discovered earlier through due diligence, and must be sufficiently material under the applicable standard.

Is a motion for a new trial the same as JMOL?

No. JMOL focuses primarily on whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support a reasonable jury’s verdict. A new-trial motion can address a broader range of serious problems with the trial or verdict.

Is a motion for a new trial the same as an appeal?

No. A new-trial motion is initially decided by the trial court. An appeal asks an appellate court to review the lower court’s judgment or rulings under appellate standards.

Can the judge order a new trial without a party asking for one?

Yes. Rule 59(d) permits the court to order a new trial on its own initiative within the rule’s 28-day period, subject to the rule’s requirements.

What happens after a new trial is granted?

The affected issues are generally tried again. The court may establish new trial procedures, deadlines, and case-management arrangements appropriate to the circumstances.

---

Conclusion

Motions for a New Trial are an essential part of federal civil procedure because they provide a mechanism for correcting serious problems that emerge from a completed trial.

They occupy an important position between the original trial and appellate review.

The purpose is not simply to give the losing party another opportunity. Rather, Rule 59 recognizes that the integrity of a judicial proceeding sometimes requires the original result to be reconsidered when the trial was affected by a sufficiently serious error or when the verdict cannot properly stand under the applicable standard.

The distinction between JMOL and a new trial is particularly important.

JMOL asks whether the evidence was legally sufficient for a reasonable jury to reach the result. A new-trial motion can reach beyond that question and address prejudicial errors, improper instructions, misconduct, newly discovered evidence, damages problems, and other circumstances that undermine the fairness or reliability of the trial.

The remedy is correspondingly different. JMOL may result in judgment as a matter of law. A successful new-trial motion ordinarily sends the affected issues back to trial.

Rule 59 therefore represents an important balance in civil litigation.

Finality matters, but so does accuracy.

The judicial system needs both a mechanism for respecting jury verdicts and a mechanism for correcting verdicts produced by serious legal or procedural problems. Motions for a New Trial provide that second layer of protection while preserving the fundamental structure of the civil litigation process.