Gaines et al v. Moore City of et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
BRYAN GAINES, in his individual capacity
and as personal representative of the Estate
of EMILY GAINES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF MOORE, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-20-851-D
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Live, Attorney-Conducted Voir Dire [Doc.
No. 159]. Defendants did not file a response and the time to do so has expired. Accordingly,
the matter is fully briefed and at issue.
Plaintiffs request that the Court allow the parties’ attorneys to conduct voir dire at
trial, rather than the Court. Id. In the alternative, Plaintiffs request that the Court use their
proposed voir dire questions at trial. [Doc. No. 159-1].
Plaintiffs assert that counsel-led voir dire is warranted to “best ensure jurors reveal
biases and preconceptions.” [Doc. No. 159, at p. 1]. Plaintiffs argue that the extent of
pretrial publicity concerning the incident, as well as Defendant Lloyd’s guilty plea and
sentencing, coupled with Defendant Lloyd’s status as a police officer, warrants permitting
counsel to conduct voir dire. Specifically, Plaintiffs assert that “[o]nly attorney-led
questioning will likely elicit full candor on these potential sensitive points.” Id. at p. 4.
Case 5:20-cv-00851-D Document 245 Filed 03/18/26 Page 1 of 2

2
“The conduct of voir dire is within the sound discretion of the trial judge.” U.S. v.
Berryhill, 880 F.2d 275, 278 (10th Cir. 1989). Rule 47(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure governs voir dire. Fed. R. Civ. P. 47(a). Rule 47(a) provides that “[t]he court
may permit the parties or their attorneys to examine prospective jurors or may itself do so.
If the court examines the jurors, it must permit the parties or their attorneys to make any
further inquiry it considers proper, or must itself ask any of their additional questions it
considers proper.” Id. “The federal trial judge retains broad discretion under Rule 47(a) to
control the scope and extent of voir dire.” Flaming v. Colorado Springs Props. Funds I, 98
F. App'x 796, 799 (10th Cir. 2004) (unpublished) (citation omitted).
The Court finds that attorney-led voir dire is not warranted here. The Court is
confident that its voir dire of the jurors will be fair and will sufficiently ensure that the
jurors are competent to serve and are impartial. See generally Berryhill, 880 F.2d at 278.
The Court routinely includes some of the requested voir dire questions submitted by
parties, if the Court deems such questions to be proper. The Court reserves its consideration
of the use of any of Plaintiffs’ proposed voir dire questions [Doc. No. 159-1] until the time
of jury selection.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs’ Motion [Doc. No. 159] is DENIED IN
PART and RESERVED IN PART.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 18 th day of March, 2026.
TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge
Case 5:20-cv-00851-D Document 245 Filed 03/18/26 Page 2 of 2