New Trial Denied as Discovery Sanction

jeffrey s. king, gregory r. youman, and k&l gates llp were on brief of discretion the denial of the new trial, jennings v. jones, 587 driver died on june 17, 2006, while this litigation was pending; this testing and talk to whomever [they] need[ed] to talk to." with trial after doing so. we find no abuse of discretion and 13 (1st cir. 2001). plaintiff asks that we order as a remedy the (1st cir. 2005). 1999. the forklift manufacturer is the defendant. the forklift district court of massachusetts. trial began on january 15, 2008. action arising out of a forklift accident that occurred on june 9, within thirty days of that order is flatly contradicted by our per curiam. the issue before us is whether the district not for publication in west's federal reporter derive capacity information about the forklift involved in the by refusing to set aside the jury's verdict. we review for abuse against the defendant as a sanction for its alleged discovery the appropriate course for parties who uncover discovery violations lynch, chief judge, defendant's assertion that we lack jurisdiction over the1 on february 12, 2008, the jury returned a unanimous test results. at a conference on january 31, 2008, the court asked trial. plaintiff did not ask for a further continuance or move for march 24 order because plaintiff failed to file a notice of appeal request a continuance 'at the time the surprise occurs.'" tiller on the fourth day of a fifteen-day jury trial, plaintiff learned after hearing from both sides on the issue, the district judgment as a sanction for an alleged discovery violation. v. that test results from a different model forklift had been used to february 12, 2010 affirm. v. baghdady, 294 f.3d 277, 281 (1st cir. 2002) (quoting u.s. fid. teledyne princeton, inc., accident. defendant had previously denied having any test on appeal, plaintiff urges that the district court erred admitted the test results into evidence, had her liability expert morrissette's post-trial motions for a new trial and for default for the district of massachusetts cir. 1995)). plaintiff was granted a three-day continuance and f.3d 430, 436-37 (1st cir. 2009), and the denial of sanctions, see plaintiff made the strategic choice to proceed with trial caselaw. see marie v. allied home mortgage corp., 402 f.3d 1, 7 the district court did not abuse its discretion when it david g. klaber with whom mark d. feczko, jared s. hawk, the underlying case involves a federal products liability testify about them, used them in her cross-examination of ferrara & dimercurio v. st. paul mercury ins. co., 240 f.3d 1, 12- -4- before court abused its discretion by denying plaintiff ginette plaintiff was granted a continuance to conduct further discovery -3- [hon. william g. young, district judge] court denied plaintiff's motion for sanctions and opted to suspend counsel repeatedly indicated his readiness to move forward with the appeal from the united states district court & guar. co. v. baker material handling corp., 62 f.3d 24, 29 (1st boudin and stahl, circuit judges. r. david depuy with whom scott h. harris, adam m. hamel, and defendant's liability expert, and referred to them repeatedly at closing. -2- verdict for the defendant. plaintiff moved for a grant of new when the disputed evidence emerged and expressly elected to proceed trial under rules 59 and 60(b) and for entry of default judgment plaintiff's counsel how he intended to proceed. plaintiff's request an additional continuance or seek a mistrial at that point, defendant, appellee. during this period, plaintiff conducted three depositions and mclane, graf, raulerson & middleton, professional association were the administrator of his estate proceeded to trial in the federal of the estate of daniel j. gagnon, another judge denied the motion on march 24, 2009, and denied information relevant to the forklift model that the decedent had is 'not to seek reversal after an unfavorable verdict,' but to trial for three days to allow the parties "to get to the bottom of on brief for appellant. used this time to conduct extensive discovery. plaintiff did not denied plaintiff's post-trial motions. affirmed. for appellee. a new trial and went forward with the trial. plaintiff then there was no error, however, to remedy. and she must live with that choice. plaintiff, appellant, united states court of appeals entry of judgment in her favor and does not seek a new trial. plaintiff's motion for reconsideration on may 13, 2009.1 violation. the trial judge died before acting on this motion. after the disputed evidence emerged. we have repeatedly held "that ginette morrissette, administrator for the first circuit been driving. no. 09-1787 obtained seventy-nine pages of documents related to the forklift