Rapp v. Fowler

Document and posture

The provided text is titled “Defendant’s Requests to Charge.” Kevin Spacey Fowler submitted the filing under Rule 51 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which concerns proposed jury instructions. The filing is dated March 4, 2022, while the supplied case metadata gives a filing date of March 10, 2022. The text does not include a ruling by Judge Lewis Kaplan on the requests.

Proposed instructions

The filing proposes that Anthony Rapp would have the burden of proving disputed elements of his claims. It describes the usual civil standard—proof by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning that something is more likely true than not—and separately includes a proposed clear-and-convincing-evidence standard if that standard applied to Rapp’s allegations under section 130 of the New York Penal Law.

The proposed instructions also explain what jurors could treat as evidence, how they could evaluate witness credibility and expert testimony, and how they should consider alleged acts involving people who were not parties to the case. They instruct jurors to avoid media coverage and prejudice based on gender, age, sexual orientation, or the nature of the claims.

Claims and proposed elements

The filing addresses Rapp’s claims for battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and assault. It also proposes instructions concerning Rapp’s allegations that Fowler violated New York Penal Law sections 130.52 and 130.55. The proposed instructions describe alleged conduct in May 1986 and state that Rapp sought damages based on conduct he alleged occurred in 1986.

For battery, the proposed instruction would require proof that Fowler intentionally picked up Rapp and lay on top of him and that the contact was offensive. For intentional infliction of emotional distress, it would require proof of outrageous conduct, severe emotional distress, and an intent to cause that distress. For assault, it would require proof that Fowler looked at Rapp while leaning against a bedroom doorway, intended to cause apprehension of harmful or offensive contact, and caused that apprehension.

The text contains unresolved drafting alternatives, including parenthetical choices between the preponderance and clear-and-convincing standards. It also refers to a violation of section 130.60 in the proposed instruction headed “New York Penal Law Section 130.55.” The provided text does not explain or resolve that discrepancy.

Disposition

No motion is granted or denied in the provided document. The text does not say whether Judge Lewis Kaplan adopted, rejected, or modified any proposed instruction, and it does not report a jury verdict or judgment.