Court: District Court, D. Maryland; June 14, 2017; Federal District Court
The White Marlin Open (WMO), the world's largest billfish fishing tournament, mandated that top prize-winning anglers undergo polygraph tests to ensure compliance with tournament rules. In the 2016 tournament, four anglers were required to take these tests after winning significant monetary prizes. Philip G. Heasley, who caught the only qualifying white marlin, was eligible for a prize of $2,818,662.00. Other anglers, Richard Kosztyu, Jim Conway, and Mark Hutchison, caught qualifying fish and were eligible for prizes ranging from $131,968.00 to $767,091.00. While the latter three passed their polygraph tests, Heasley did not, and subsequent tests indicated deception.
This failure to pass the polygraph led Heasley to challenge the legality of his contract with WMO and the administration of the tests, resulting in nine months of litigation and eight days of testimony. The court concluded that Heasley’s arguments were without merit, affirming that WMO complied with its contractual obligations and that Heasley’s failure to pass the polygraph disqualified him from receiving the prize money.
Additionally, the court found that Heasley and his crew violated a key tournament rule by deploying their fishing lines before the official start time of 8:30 a.m. on August 9, 2016. Consequently, the Kallianassa's catch was disqualified, benefiting the other anglers. The case reflects an ironic twist, as the names of the competing boats—Hubris, Get Reel, and Magic Moment—echo the themes of overconfidence and pride associated with Heasley’s actions.
1. White Marlin Open, Inc. fulfilled its contractual obligations under the 2016 Tournament Rules, and thus did not breach the contract.
2. Defendant Philip G. Heasley’s performance under the Tournament Rules was not excused, and he failed to meet the polygraph requirement stipulated in the rules, which constitutes non-performance.
3. Heasley is legally barred from claiming the $2,818,662.00 in Prize Money.
4. Even if White Marlin Open, Inc. had breached the contract, Heasley would still not be entitled to the prize money due to evidence showing he and his crew violated the Tournament Rules by deploying fishing lines before the allowed time on August 9, 2016, when they caught a white marlin.
5. The Court's findings are made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) and include a summary of the procedural history leading to this conclusion, including the interpleader action initiated by White Marlin Open, Inc. in Maryland state court, subsequent removal to federal court by Heasley, and the realignment of parties based on their interests.
6. The Court emphasized the importance of preventing parallel litigation in state and federal courts and ordered White Marlin Open, Inc. to deposit the Prize Money in the Court’s Registry.
7. Various crossclaims and counterclaims arose during the proceedings, including allegations against White Marlin Open, Inc. for breach of contract, which the court addressed in a subsequent Memorandum Opinion and Order.
Heasley’s Motion to Dismiss WMO was denied, while Kosztyu and Hutchison’s Crossclaim against WMO was stayed, and their Crossclaim against other parties and Complaint against Heasley were dismissed. On March 17, 2017, an Amended Complaint against Heasley was filed, which became the operative pleading. Heasley subsequently filed an Answer and asserted two Counterclaims against WMO for Breach of Contract and Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.
A dispute arose regarding Heasley’s obligation to disclose whether he or others took polygraphs after the Complaint was filed, which Heasley claimed was protected by the attorney work-product doctrine. Heasley moved for a Protective Order on this matter. During the proceedings, Heasley disclosed a new expert witness, polygraph examiner John Palmatier, intending to introduce polygraph results from March 2017.
The Court denied Heasley’s Motion for Protective Order, stating that the facts regarding the polygraph examinations were not protected under the attorney work-product doctrine, as they did not involve privileged mental impressions or were not taken in anticipation of litigation. Heasley was found to have waived any privilege by disclosing related materials. The Court ordered Heasley to produce the polygraph examination videos for in camera review. Following this review, the Court excluded Dr. Palmatier's testimony and the polygraph evidence based on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and a relevant five-factor test from Fourth Circuit precedent.
The Court determined that the late evidence disclosure was surprising and prejudicial to the plaintiffs, with no reasonable justification for its tardiness. On March 3, 2017, plaintiffs Kosztyu and Hutchison sought Summary Judgment based on Heasley’s alleged failure to pass a polygraph test required under the Tournament Rules. However, on April 24, 2017, the Court denied this motion, citing genuine issues of material fact regarding the validity of the administered polygraphs and WMO's compliance with its own rules. The Court outlined the trial's procedural framework, stating it must first assess whether Heasley and WMO adhered to the Tournament Rules, particularly regarding Heasley’s polygraph performance. If a breach by WMO excused Heasley’s performance, the Court would then adjudicate the entitlement to the prize money. Evidence was presented at trial, and the parties filed various motions in limine concerning witnesses and evidentiary issues, which were denied on May 15, 2017.
Following a nine-day bench trial from May 22 to June 5, 2017, the Court made various findings of fact. The White Marlin Open (WMO), founded in 1974 by Jim Motsko in Ocean City, Maryland, is recognized as the largest billfish fishing tournament globally. To ensure compliance with Tournament Rules, a polygraph provision has been included since at least 2004, mandating that anglers winning $50,000 or more may be required to pass a polygraph examination before receiving awards. Motsko emphasized that this rule aims to confirm compliance with tournament regulations. Captain Paul Spencer, an experienced tournament participant, corroborated the widespread use of polygraphs in fishing tournaments to deter cheating, noting their effectiveness and commonality in high-stakes competitions.
Spencer attested to the WMO Tournament's reputation for integrity and fairness within the sport-fishing industry. Key rules discussed include: registered vessels could fish for three of the five tournament days, could not pass the Ocean City Inlet's 'sea buoy' before 4:00 a.m., were restricted to fishing within one hundred nautical miles of Ocean City, could not deploy lines before 8:30 a.m. or fish after 3:30 p.m., and allowed non-registered anglers to 'hook' fish and pass the rod to the registered angler under the 'Hook-and-Hand' Rule. The forty-third annual White Marlin Open was held from August 8 to August 12, 2016, in Ocean City, Maryland, with defendants Heasley, Kosztyu, Hutchison, and Conway participating. Heasley, aboard the Kallianassa, caught the only qualifying white marlin at 76.5 pounds, potentially winning first place. Kosztyu caught a 236.5-pound big eye tuna, and Hutchison caught a 233-pound big eye tuna. Heasley, a Florida resident, owned the Kallianassa, a 68-foot Hatteras, and hired Captain David Morris and first mate Kyle Bohannon in 2016. The Kallianassa was only the second tournament Heasley participated in with this crew. The crew met before the tournament to discuss responsibilities, with Heasley as the registered angler responsible for fighting and reeling in fish. On the first day of the tournament, August 8, 2016, the Kallianassa fished but did not report any catches.
On August 9, 2016, Captain David Morris woke at 3:45 a.m. to prepare the Kallianassa for departure at 4:30 a.m., assisted by mates Bohannon and Hagen, who also set alarms for 3:45 a.m. They returned to sleep until 7:30 a.m. and used their mobile phones to check the time, with no one wearing a watch. The Kallianassa's engines were started at 4:26 a.m., and the vessel departed the dock shortly thereafter, reaching a cruising speed of approximately 22 knots. Heasley joined Morris on the bridge around 5:00 a.m., and Morris handed over control to Heasley until returning at 6:30 a.m. The boat then continued towards Baltimore Canyon.
At 7:51 a.m., the Kallianassa slowed to a trolling speed of about 7 knots and remained at this speed until 12:02 p.m., appropriate for deploying fishing lines. The Kallianassa was situated 20-30 nautical miles southeast of Baltimore Canyon and trailed a school of skipjack tuna, which are prey for marlin. It is undisputed that Captain Morris commanded the deployment of lines, and Hagen hooked a white marlin shortly thereafter. Heasley fought the fish, which was ultimately gaffed by Hagen and pulled onto the boat by Bohannon and Hagen. The Kallianassa fished until approximately 12:00 p.m. and returned to the marina between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m. The weigh-in for the WMO Tournament opened at 4:00 p.m. Importantly, the Kallianassa's 76.5-pound white marlin was onboard before 8:58:47 a.m., and Captain Morris recorded Waypoint 76 in the GPS after the fish was secured.
Significant discrepancies exist among the crew members of the Kallianassa regarding the timing of events leading up to Captain Morris’ entry of Waypoint 76 at 8:58:47 a.m., just 28 minutes post the deployment of fishing lines as per WMO Tournament Rules. Key points of contention include the duration to deploy fishing lines, hook the white marlin, fight and reel in the fish, and gaff it into the boat. The Court must assess the credibility and factual accuracy of the conflicting testimonies from trial evidence.
Several accounts are examined, including a video interview at the White Marlin Marina where Heasley initially stated uncertainty about the fight duration, with Morris suggesting it was about ten minutes. In a different video, Heasley claimed the marlin was caught approximately 20 minutes after lines were down. Additionally, the Kallianassa's Catch Report, signed by Heasley and Morris, noted the catch time as 9:05 a.m., although this time had been altered from an earlier recorded time of 10:15 a.m. by Mate Bohannon, who acknowledged the mistake during testimony.
Polygraph examinations revealed further inconsistencies: Heasley estimated the fight duration as around 20 minutes but acknowledged his uncertainty due to the excitement of the moment, while Morris suggested a time frame of 10 to 15 minutes. The Court must evaluate these diverging accounts to determine the factual sequence of events that occurred on August 9, 2016.
Heasley underwent a polygraph examination on August 21, 2016, during which he reported uncertainty regarding the time taken to deploy fishing lines and asserted that no lines were dropped before 8:30 a.m. He noted that the crew began fishing at approximately 9:15 a.m., after preparing the dredges and teasers. Mates Bohannon and Hagen also took polygraph tests on the same day. Bohannon initially stated that the Kallianassa deployed bait at 8:00 a.m. but later corrected this to after 8:30 a.m., reaffirming that fishing did not start until 8:30. He described catching a fish around 9:00 a.m. Hagen corroborated that lines were deployed at 8:30 and the first fish was caught shortly after. During cross-examination, Heasley maintained that deploying the fishing spread took about 15 minutes and confirmed that the first bite occurred around 9:00 a.m., referencing a photograph of the caught marlin taken at 9:09:08 a.m. Conversely, Captain Morris testified that the fish was already in the boat by 8:58:47 a.m., indicating a discrepancy between his account and Heasley’s testimony regarding the timeline of events on August 9, 2016.
Morris testified that the struggle to reel in the fish took ten minutes after it was hooked by Hagen. He detailed the method used to measure the fish's weight, specifically the 'girth x length x 800' formula. First Mate Bohannon elaborated on his role in preparing bait and tackle, noting that on the evening of August 8, he and Hagen rigged around 200 dredge baits, 200 natural baits, 20 pitch baits, and 10 teaser baits for deployment the next morning. On August 9, they deployed the entire fishing spread within one to two minutes, and a fish hit the spread shortly thereafter, although Bohannon could not specify the exact timing. During cross-examination, Bohannon noted that ten to fifteen minutes into the fight, the fish was visible jumping about sixty yards from the boat, and it took an additional five to seven minutes for Heasley to reel it in.
Second Mate Hagen, who met Heasley the day before the tournament, stated that Morris commanded the deployment of the fishing spread, which took two to four minutes. He indicated that the fish struck the spread approximately twenty minutes after deployment. Hagen hooked the fish and passed the rod to Heasley, who took around ten minutes to bring it aboard.
The Court examined all evidence, including video and testimonies, regarding the timeline of the fishing activities. It found Heasley’s claim credible that it took ten to fifteen minutes to deploy the spread, consistent with his previous statements. The Court did not find the testimonies of Bohannon and Hagen credible regarding a deployment time of one to four minutes, citing the complexity of the tasks involved. Ultimately, the Court determined that it took fifteen to twenty minutes for the fish to bite and for Hagen to hook the 76.5-pound white marlin, confirming Heasley’s statement that they caught the fish twenty minutes after the lines were deployed.
Heasley did not read the WMO Tournament Rules thoroughly and relied on Captain Morris for line deployment, which he did not personally execute. Heasley’s assertion regarding the timing of when the fish was hooked is interpreted as occurring twenty minutes after lines were deployed, rather than at the WMO's stated 8:30 a.m. 'lines down' time. This interpretation is supported by Bohannon's testimony that they fished for about thirty minutes before hooking the fish, indicating it was hooked fifteen to twenty minutes after line deployment, which occurred between 8:08 and 8:23 a.m. The fight to reel in the fish took between ten to fifteen minutes, despite conflicting accounts from crew members about its duration. The undisputed capture time of the fish was recorded at 8:58:47 a.m. on the Garmin GPS. The account also includes testimony from the crew of the Maverick, who confirmed seeing the Kallianassa and provided differing descriptions of how they identified each other during the fishing activity. Overall, the Kallianassa's line deployment occurred before 8:30 a.m., supported by onboard electronics indicating trolling speed as early as 8:04 a.m.
Bohannon and Hagen could not see the Maverick while a fish was being hooked but observed it after Morris turned the Kallianassa during the fight. McLeod and Ashley identified the 70-foot Hatteras from its prominent dock at White Marlin Marina. McLeod noted that around 8:00 a.m. on June 1, the Maverick was 100 to 200 yards from the Kallianassa's starboard side, chasing tuna. He assumed the Kallianassa did not deploy its lines before 8:30 a.m. and testified that it caught a white marlin approximately 15 to 20 minutes after the Maverick deployed its lines at 8:31 a.m. He observed the Kallianassa begin heading toward shore shortly after catching the fish.
Ashley corroborated that the Maverick was also several hundred yards from the Kallianassa at around 8:00 a.m. and did not see the Kallianassa deploy its lines, as he was attending to multiple fishing rods for guests. He witnessed the Kallianassa's marlin hooked and jumping at 8:45 a.m. During the fight, the Maverick turned away, while the Kallianassa backed down towards the fish for assistance. Ashley saw the Kallianassa's cockpit shade pulled down between 12:00 and 1:00 p.m., indicating it headed to shore.
A significant discrepancy arose regarding the timing of these events. McLeod suggested the Kallianassa pulled down its cockpit shade and began heading to shore 10 to 30 minutes after catching the marlin, while Ashley indicated it did so between 12:00 and 1:00 p.m. This inconsistency implies they may have seen the Kallianassa between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., aligning with the Kallianassa's third catch recorded at 11:20 a.m. Further evidence from the Kallianassa’s onboard systems confirmed an acceleration from trolling to cruising speed just after 12:00 p.m., supporting the timeline of events.
McLeod and Ashley's testimony is called into question due to potential biases stemming from their relationships with Captain Morris and his associates. Ashley acknowledged his bias regarding the distribution of prize money to the Kallianassa crew, and both he and McLeod have connections to Randy Yates, who is also tied to Tyler Morris, further complicating their credibility. As a result, the Court attributes little weight to their accounts concerning the Kallianassa's catch due to inconsistencies and apparent bias.
Following the WMO Tournament, contestants Heasley, Kosztyu, Hutchison, and Conway were requested to undergo polygraph tests in accordance with tournament rules. On August 12, WMO Tournament Director Madelyn Rowan instructed Captain Morris to ensure Heasley reported for his polygraph on the morning of August 13. Heasley complied, attending the Clarion Hotel for the examination, where he met Paul Carey, a qualified polygraph examiner with extensive experience in fishing tournaments. The Court finds Carey to be a competent examiner and notes that Heasley had previously taken polygraphs for federal clearances and expressed comfort with the testing process during the pre-test interview.
Video evidence confirms Hensley’s understanding during the polygraph examination conducted by Carey using the directed lie comparison question technique. Carey asked Heasley three pertinent questions regarding tournament violations, to which Heasley answered “no” each time. Despite repeated questioning, Heasley's test was deemed 'Inconclusive' due to artifacts on the polygraph charts resulting from his movements. Subsequently, WMO decided not to disqualify Heasley or the Kallianassa immediately but opted to have Captain Morris undergo a polygraph test. During his pre-test interview, Morris disclosed prior polygraph experiences and significant alcohol consumption the previous night. Carey asked Morris the same three relevant questions, and although Morris also answered “no,” he exhibited signs of claustrophobia during the test, prompting a pause. Ultimately, Morris’s polygraph results indicated deception, as confirmed by expert witness Donald Krapohl, despite Morris’s claims of experiencing a panic attack. Following the examination, Morris reacted with distress over the potential loss of a significant prize. Carey informed Morris of his rights under the Tournament Rules to dispute the polygraph result and encouraged him to seek a second opinion. After notifying WMO Directors of the deceptive result, Carey explained the outcomes of both Heasley and Morris’s tests to them.
WMO decided to withhold prize money from Heasley and his crew due to inconclusive results from prior tests. The WMO Directors acted in good faith, allowing the crew to receive a trophy and promotional check while requiring them to complete polygraph examinations to fulfill Tournament Rules. Madelyn Rowan was tasked with scheduling these follow-up examinations. On August 14, Carey informed Rowan about quality control measures for polygraph tests and recommended polygraphists, including David Saneman. Heasley agreed to undergo testing in Maryland on August 21.
On that date, Heasley, Bohannon, and Hagen met with Saneman, a qualified examiner with extensive experience and credentials. Saneman utilized the probable lie comparison question technique, which is recognized for its accuracy. Each examinee was asked whether they violated fishing rules on August 9, 2016, to which they all responded "no." However, Saneman concluded that their results indicated deception. Each examination also included a relevant/irrelevant question test.
The relevant/irrelevant question technique used by Saneman has lower accuracy than the comparison question technique, despite being taught in APA-accredited polygraph schools. Saneman employed this method to address violation-specific questions from Madelyn Rowan during pre-test instructions. The results from the polygraph examinations of Heasley, Bohannon, and Hagen indicated deception, leading WMO to decide against awarding Heasley the first-place prize money. After consulting with counsel and independent judges, WMO informed Heasley of their decision on August 22, 2016, and requested he release the prize funds for distribution to other winners. Heasley refused, asserting no violations of tournament rules, and designated attorney Christopher Sullivan for further communications. On August 23, WMO's counsel, Joseph Moore, communicated with Sullivan, indicating plans to file an Interpleader action in Maryland's Circuit Court. Moore sent Sullivan the Interpleader Complaint on August 26, prompting Sullivan to object until Heasley could exercise his rights under the rules. Moore clarified WMO’s intent to resolve the matter through court to avoid bias concerns. WMO filed the Complaint that same day. According to Rule G.7d of the WMO Tournament Rules, an angler may dispute a polygraph result by undergoing a second test at their expense within ten days. On August 29 and 30, Bohannon, Hagen, Heasley, and Morris underwent subsequent polygraph examinations administered by Jack Trimarco in Baltimore.
Polygraph examination results conducted by Carey and Saneman for WMO were not disclosed to WMO or produced in litigation. Heasley’s claim that WMO restricted his rights under Tournament Rules is undermined by the timing of his crew's polygraph tests, which took place shortly after notification of non-award of prize money. Competing expert testimonies were presented at trial, with the plaintiffs relying on Donald Krapohl and David Raskin, while Heasley relied on Mark Handler. The Court found Krapohl to be highly credible due to his extensive experience in polygraphy, attributing substantial weight to his opinions. Raskin’s testimony was deemed credible but less impactful due to academic disagreements with industry standards. Handler’s opinions were considered less credible because of his limited experience and inconsistencies during cross-examination. Ultimately, the Court supported Krapohl’s conclusion that the polygraph examinations adhered to the standard of care and ASTM standards. The examinations were classified as screening tests, appropriate given the absence of specific allegations against the anglers involved. The questions posed during the examinations did not assume wrongdoing and were appropriately focused on the timeframe of the prize-winning catch. The Court also determined that all examined individuals were of sound mind and understood the questions asked. Heasley’s claims of flaws in the examinations were dismissed as unmerited distractions from the clear indications of deception in his test results.
The Court confirmed the proper administration of the Carey and Saneman polygraphs. Expert testimony was presented from Dr. Louis Rovner, who did not review the specific polygraph tests, and Dr. William Iacono, who reviewed them but lacked training in administering polygraphs for diagnostic purposes and was unqualified to assess their propriety. Dr. Rovner asserted that polygraphs using the comparison question technique have a 90% accuracy rate, while Dr. Iacono argued that polygraph evidence is inherently unreliable and should not be given weight in the case. Despite the WMO Tournament Rules allowing for polygraph evidence to determine eligibility for prize money, the Court denied a motion to exclude Dr. Iacono's testimony, as there was a potential that the polygraphs could be shown to be defective, which could excuse Heasley’s obligation to take and pass one. However, since it was determined that the polygraphs were properly administered and Heasley did not meet the Tournament Rules’ polygraph requirement, Heasley is not entitled to the prize money. Under Maryland law, parties can agree to the use of polygraphs, and it is established that a party must prove their own performance or an excuse for nonperformance to recover for a breach.
A contractual duty is contingent upon the fulfillment of a condition precedent, which must be met for performance obligations to arise and for breaches of contract to occur. A material breach by one party can excuse the other from performance, with the materiality of a breach typically determined as a factual matter, unless it is clear enough to resolve as a matter of law. In this case, Rule G.7 of the WMO Tournament stipulates that anglers winning over $50,000 may be required to pass a polygraph test before receiving awards; this requirement constitutes a condition precedent to the award of prizes. Heasley’s catch qualified him for over $2.8 million in prize money, making him subject to this rule. WMO informed Heasley of the polygraph requirement, which he failed to pass as the results were inconclusive. WMO allowed a fellow angler, Morris, to take a polygraph on Heasley’s behalf, but he also failed. Subsequently, Heasley and others agreed to take additional tests, all of which were failed. By August 22, 2016, WMO determined Heasley did not fulfill the condition precedent and notified him he would not receive the prize money. Heasley claimed his non-performance should be excused due to alleged improper administration of the polygraph tests, but these arguments were found to be without merit. The court concluded that WMO adequately fulfilled its responsibilities under the contract, and Heasley failed to meet the necessary condition precedent; therefore, his performance was not excused.
Heasley is legally ineligible to receive $2,818,662.00 in Prize Money due to violations of the Tournament Rules. Specifically, Heasley and the crew of the Kallianassa deployed fishing lines before the permitted time of 8:30 a.m. on August 9, 2016, the day they caught a 76.5-pound white marlin. Although the parties had previously agreed that if Heasley demonstrated a breach by WMO, the court would determine entitlement to the prize money, the court concluded that WMO did not breach its obligations under the contract.
Furthermore, Heasley alleged that WMO breached the Tournament Rules Contract by restricting his right to dispute an unfavorable polygraph result under Rule G.7d. WMO denied these allegations, asserting that Heasley had the opportunity to undergo a second polygraph, which he did on August 29 and 30, 2016, within the stipulated timeframe. Heasley failed to present the results of these polygraphs to WMO within the ten-day period following notification of his unfavorable results, thereby not proving his claim of WMO denying him the right to dispute the polygraph results.
Additionally, WMO’s counsel had previously clarified that Heasley could exercise his rights under the rules before the interpleader action was filed. Therefore, WMO is entitled to judgment against Heasley’s first counterclaim.
WMO's initiation of a court case did not impede Mr. Heasley from exercising his rights under the Tournament Rules. Filing a lawsuit does not change the contractual relationship between parties, so WMO did not legally restrict Heasley’s rights under Rule G.7d or abandon its Prize Money payout process. Consequently, WMO is entitled to judgment in its favor regarding Heasley’s first Counterclaim.
Maryland courts do not recognize an independent cause of action for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. Heasley’s second Counterclaim, which alleges WMO breached this duty by relying on substandard polygraph examinations and failing to investigate their compliance with standards, merely repeats allegations from the breach of contract claim. As Maryland law views the breach of good faith as part of another cause of action, WMO is entitled to judgment on this Counterclaim as well.
The Court concludes that: 1) WMO complied with the 2016 Tournament Rules and did not breach the contract; 2) Heasley’s performance was not excused; 3) Heasley did not meet the polygraph requirement; 4) Heasley is not entitled to $2,818,662.00 in Prize Money; 5) Even if WMO had breached, Heasley would not be entitled to the prize money due to violations of Tournament Rules concerning fishing lines; 6) Judgment is entered in favor of WMO on Heasley’s Counterclaims; 7) Counsel for the plaintiffs must confer on remaining matters and submit a joint Status Report by June 23, 2017.
During the 2016 White Marlin Open legal proceedings, the court emphasized the need to realign the anglers involved, excluding Mr. Heasley, to consolidate interests regarding his eligibility and maintain the original dispute between Heasley and the White Marlin Open (WMO). This alignment prevents potential parallel litigation across state and federal courts. Despite thirteen anglers being named as interested parties, only four filed answers, with three actively participating in the litigation. Inactive anglers may still claim a share of the interpleaded prize money. The court noted that while WMO could seek recovery of attorney’s fees, it was not entitled to a fivefold recovery as initially sought according to tournament rules. Plaintiffs' motions to exclude or strike evidence were treated as motions in limine, with the court open to compelling disclosure of polygraph results, although plaintiffs chose not to pursue this. The court established a test for admitting evidence based on surprise, ability to cure, trial disruption, importance of the evidence, and the nondisclosing party’s explanation. Upon reviewing the proposed evidence related to tournament rules, the court found its relevance limited due to the narrow scope of questions and significant coaching during examinations, which diminished its probative value.
Boats participating in the case may launch from any inlet between Barnegat Inlet, NJ, and Ru-dee Inlet, VA, but only the Ocean City Inlet, where the Kallianassa operated, is pertinent. The plaintiff, Conway, did not provide evidence of his catch at trial, although the Amended Complaint claims he caught a 790-pound blue marlin on the vessel Get Reel. Heasley and Morris were both familiar with the Hook-and-Hand rule, commonly used in large fishing tournaments, while Hagen had no prior experience with such tournaments. Under the WMO Tournament Rules, only fish caught by registered anglers are eligible for entry. Testimony from Perry indicated the GP Link system recorded the vessel's speed increase from 7 to 25 knots between 11:38 a.m. and 12:08 p.m., with a waypoint manually entered into the Garmin GPS. The WMO Rules prohibit line deployment before 8:30 a.m.
The Court noted that Morris's later statement regarding catching a fish was less probative after failing a polygraph test. A diagram of the Kallianassa's fishing spread was submitted as evidence. Heasley and Morris reported their satellite calls to WMO at 9:28 a.m. on August 9, 2016, regarding a 76.5-pound white marlin they could not fit into their cooler, and were advised not to mutilate the fish, which they complied with. The satellite records confirmed the presence of the white marlin on board before 9:28 a.m., but did not clarify when it was caught. Bohannon provided detailed testimony on deploying the fishing spread, describing the coordinated process of placing lines and bait in the water.
Captain Morris is managing line D while the author prepares lines C and E, securing them in rod holders before deploying line B (the dredge) and line A, ensuring line A mimics natural bait movement. There are inconsistencies in Hagen's testimony regarding Heasley's use of a fighting belt during the white marlin catch, contradicted by other crew members. Although this detail is deemed irrelevant to the case, it raises questions about witness credibility. The Kallianassa's Prize Money Distribution Form, signed by Heasley on August 13, 2016, outlines the distribution of $2,818,662.00 in prize money, with specific amounts allocated to each crew member. The time taken to gaff and bring the fish aboard is unspecified, but Bohannon and Hagen confirmed the fish's qualifying size. Morris's involvement in measuring the fish occurred after he entered coordinates into a Garmin system, suggesting possible limitations in Ashley's perspective of the cockpit during events. The 'Diamond Jim' tournament, overseen by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, employs polygraph testing for verification. Expert Donald Krapohl, with extensive polygraph experience, assessed Heasley’s results and noted signs of deception, while also stating Carey’s interpretation of the results was conservative but not erroneous. The record shows that WMO did not disqualify Heasley based on Carey’s inconclusive reading but allowed for a second examination at WMO's expense. The questions posed in the second examination pertained to potential tournament violations. There is no evidence that Carey participated in the second examination process.
The Court acknowledges the American Polygraph Association's 51st Annual Seminar/Workshop held from August 28 to September 2, 2016, where notable speakers included Donald Krapohl, Mark Handler, and Jack Trimarco. Krapohl, a prominent polygraph authority, has extensive experience, including a role as Deputy Director at the National Center for Credibility Assessment and a career with the CIA. He holds a Master's Degree, has attended accredited polygraph training, and has authored significant literature in the field. No voir dire was conducted for Krapohl. Dr. David Raskin, a pioneer in polygraph research, has conducted studies validating the Comparison Question Technique relevant to this case; he also did not undergo voir dire despite the introduction of cases questioning his credibility. Mark Handler, another polygraph examiner and instructor, possesses only a two-year Associate's degree and has conducted limited polygraph quality control reviews. During voir dire, he did not dispute Heasley's deceptive results but criticized the examinations conducted by Carey and Saneman. Heasley raised multiple issues regarding the polygraph process, including overly broad questions, inadequate explanation of results, insufficient test charts, lack of post-test interviews, improper emphasis on certain questions, and alleged influences from examiners. He also questioned the scientific validity of Saneman's testing methods and compliance with ASTM standards.
The Tournament Rules do not mandate that WMO-administered polygraphs conform to ASTM standards; however, expert testimony determined that the polygraphs used by Carey and Saneman complied with these standards. Consequently, the Court did not need to address Heasley’s argument regarding the distinctions between rule G.7 and G.7d. WMO treated Heasley’s inconclusive results from the Carey exam as null and provided him a chance for a second examination at their expense. Heasley also sought a Protective Order to prevent disclosing the existence of the Trimarco polygraphs. Regarding Heasley’s first Counterclaim alleging WMO breached the contract by relying on substandard polygraph tests, WMO is entitled to judgment based on prior explanations. Heasley’s reference to Parker v. The Columbia Bank was acknowledged as an incomplete interpretation of Maryland law. Additionally, Heasley’s mention of a breach of fiduciary duty claim against WMO was deemed irrelevant and inappropriate, as he did not plead such a claim in his Answer and Counterclaims, presented no trial evidence for it, and the Court found that WMO acted prudently and responsibly, including its decision to file an Interpleader to mitigate potential conflicting claims and liabilities.
