NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ No s . 0 9 - 1 6 9 5 & 0 9 - 3 4 4 1 ( CO NS OL I DAT E D)

___________ J AN I CE G I LM OR E,

A ppel l ant v. M A C Y S R E T A IL H O L D IN G S , IN C .

_______________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i v. A ct i on N o. 1: 06- cv- 03020) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le J e ro m e B . S im a n d le

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 23, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , C H A G A R E S and W E I S, C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J une 30, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M.

Jan ice G il m o re a p p ea ls a fina l j u d g m en t bythe U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e D istric t o f

N e w Je rse ye n ter e d o n F e b ru a ry1 0 , 2 0 0 9 , an d a n o rd e r ta x in g c o sts enter ed o n Jun e 19 , 20 09 . W e w i l l affirm the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s decis i on s. I . B ackgr ound Si nce 1989, G i l m or e has been e m pl oy ed bya depa r t m ents t or e oper at ed byM acy ’ s Fi ne J ew el r yD epart m enti s di vi ded i nt o thr ee a r eas : the D i amond B ay , t he 1 G o ld B a y , a n d th e W a tc h B a y . A ppel l ee M acy s R et ai l H ol di ngs I nc. ( “M acy ’ s ”) . G i l m or e cl ai m s M acy ’ s di s cr i m i nat ed agai ns theron t he bas i s of r ace ( A fr i can A m er i can) . A ft erobt ai ni ng a r i ght - t o- s ue l et t er f ro m th e E E O C in 2 0 0 6 , G ilm o re f iled a n e m p lo ym e n t d isc rim in a tio n a c tio n in A tlan tic C ountySuper i orC our tunderT i t l e V I I of the C i vi l R i ght s A ct , s ee 42 U . S. C . § 2000e, a n d N e w J e rs e yla w .

I n hercompl ai nt , G i l m or e al l eges s he bega n w or ki ng i n the G ol d B ayof M acy ’ s Fi ne J ew el r yD epart m enti n 2001. D es pi t e expr es s i ng an i nt er es ti n bei ng 1 pr om ot ed t o the D i amond B ay , M acy ’ s di d notgr antherr eques t . W hen a D i amond B ay pos i t i on beca m e ava i l abl e i n 2004, a w hi t e empl oy ee, J eane t t e R ut t er , r ece i ved the p ro m o tio n o v e r G ilm o re . G ilm o re a lso c laim s s h e w a s tre a ted m o re p o o rlyth a n w h ite empl oy ees i n the Fi ne J ew el r yD epart m entbecaus e: ( 1) D i amond B ayas s oci at es di d not re q u e st G ilm o re to f

ill in f o r th e m d u rin g th e ir a b se n c e s, a n d in ste a d p re f e re n tially r eques t ed w hi t e as s oci at es ; ( 2) G i l m or e w as cal l ed upon t o do “mai nt enanc e t as ks , ” s uch as sizing w atch es, on a d ispro p o rt ion ate b asis relati v e to w h it e e m p loy ee s; ( 3 ) G il m o re and otherbl ack e m pl oy ees w er e notgi ven the combi nat i on t o the al arm and vaul tfort he D iam o n d B a y ; an d (4 ) G ilm o re w a s n o t p e rm itt e d to b e c o m e a C o u n ter S p e c ialist w ith in the Fi ne J ew el r yD epart m ent . G i l m or e eve ntual l yr ece i ved a pr om ot i on t o the D i amond B a yin 2 0 0 7 . S h e c o n tin u e s to w o rk f o r M a c y ’s . In J u ly 2 0 0 6 , M a c y ’s re m o v e d G ilm o re ’s a c tio n to th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .F r o m th e r e c o r d , i ta p p e a r s Gi l mo r e h a d a f a l l i n g o u twi th h e rc o u n s e l s o me t i me 2 sh o rtlya f

ter c o n c lu sio n o f

th e trial. B ef o re the D istri ct C o u rt , G il m o re w as re p rese n ted b yp ri v ately -retai n ed co u n sel. A fter a per i od of di s covery , M acy ’ s m oved fors um m aryj udgm ent , and G i l m or e oppos ed the m ot i on. O n M ar ch 11, 2008, the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entt o M acy ’ s on al l cl ai m s exce ptone: a di s par at e tr eatm entcl ai m thatM acy ’ s deni ed G i l m or e an e qual o p p o rt u n ity to f

ill in f o r a b s e n t D ia m o n d B a ye m p lo y e e s o n a c c o u n t o f h e r r a c e . Gi l mo r e ’ s a c t i o n p r o c e e d e d o n th a tc l a i m.

T he D i s tr i ctC our tent er ed the part i es ’ j oi ntpr e- tr i al or deri n A ugus t2008 a n d sc h e d u led trial f

o r Ja n u a ry2 0 0 9 . In D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 8 , G ilm o re f iled a m o tio n to amend, s eeki ng t o r ai s e new cl ai m s bas ed upon eve nt s thatoccurr ed af t erherpr om ot i on t o the D i amond B ay . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed the mot i on.

G i l m or e’ s di s par at e tr eatm entcl ai m pr ocee ded t o a j urytr i al begi nni ng on F eb rua ry2 , 2 0 0 9 . O n F eb rua ry1 0 , 2 0 0 9 , the ju ryreturn ed a v erd ictin f av o r of M ac y ’s an d G il m o re ti m elyfil ed a p ro se n o ti ce o f a p p ea l. A s the p rev ail ing p arty , M ac y ’s 2 m oved forcos t s . O n J une 19, 2009, the D i s tr i ctC our taw ar ded M acy ’ s cos t s i n the amount of $4, 861. 30. G i l m or e fi l ed a s econd t i m el ypr o s e not i ce of appea l . W e have con sol i dated the ap peals . II. A n a ly sis

I n heropeni ng br i ef, G i l m or e cha l l enges deci s i ons m ade a tal l s t ages of the D i s tr i ctC our tpr ocee di ngs . H ercl ai m s ar e l ar gel yconcl us ory , uncl ear l yart i cul at ed, andM an yo f G il m o re’s claim s co n ce rn h er f o rm er c o u n sel’s all eg ed lyu n sati sfa ctory 3 per form ance . G i l m or e’ s di s s at i s fac t i on w i th heratt orneydoes notpr ovi de gr ounds for appea l . See W al kerv. Sun Shi p, I nc. , 684 F. 2d 266, 268 ( 3d C i r . 1982) ( beca us e a l i t i gant“vol unt ar i l ychos e thi s att orneyas hi s r epr es ent at i ve i n the ac t i on, . . . he ca nnot n o w av o id the co n seq u en ce s o f th e a cts o r om issi o n s o f th is free lyselec ted a g en t. ”); K us hnerv. W i nt erthurSw i s s I ns . C o. , 620 F. 2d 404, 408 ( 3d C i r . 1980) ( ci vi l l i t i gant s do n o t hav e a ri g h t t o ef

fe cti v e a ssist an ce o f c o u n sel). l acki ng i n both l egal and r ecor d s uppor t . See Fed. R . A pp. P. 28( a) ; s ee a l s o K os tv. K o z a k iew icz , 1 F .3 d 1 7 6 , 1 8 2 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 3 ) (c u rso rytre a tm e n t o f a n iss u e in a b rie f

is i ns uffi ci entt o pr es erve the i s s ue on appe al ) . Par t i cul ar l yi n l i ghtof the vol um i nous re c o rd b e lo w , G ilm o re h a s p ro v id e d littl e b a s is f o r u s to m e a n in g f

u lly re v ie w h e r c la im s . N everthel es s , i n l i ghtof hercurr entpr o s e s t atus and ourcons equentl i ber al cons truct i on o f h er p lead ing s an d su b m issi o n s, see D luh o s v . S tr asb erg , 3 2 1 F . 3 d 3 6 5 , 3 6 9 (3d C ir . 2003) , w e have i nt erpr et ed hercl ai m s as bes tw e ca n under s t and them and have conduct ed a r eas onabl e r evi ew t o det erm i ne w hethers he has pr es ent ed gr ounds for di s turbi ng anydeci s i on r eac hed bythe j uryorbythe D i s tr i ctC our t . W e conc l ude s he has n o t. 3 A.

W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on gr ant i ng p a rt ia l s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t to M a c y ’s . S e e S tr a tto n v . E .I. d u P o n t D e N e m o u rs & C o ., 3 6 3 F .3 d 2 5 0 , 2 5 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). W e re v iew th e f a c ts in th e lig h t m o st f

a v o ra b le to G ilm o re a n d w ill a f

f irm if th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e a s to a n ym a ter ial f a c t an d M a c y ’s is e n tit led to ju d g m e n t as a m a tter o f law . F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c ); C e lo tex C o rp . v . C a tre tt, 477 U . S. 317, 322 ( 1986) . W e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on.A ccor di ng t o t he D i s tr i ctC our t , G i l m or e s t at ed i n herdepos i t i on thats he per form ed 4 “mai nt enanc e” t as ks , s uch as s i zi ng w at ches , as fr equent l yas a w hi t e col l eague ; s he acknow l edged thattw o Fi ne J ew el r yC ount erSpeci al i s t s w er e A fr i can A m er i can; and s he s t at ed thats he neve rr eques t ed the combi nat i ons t o the D i amond B ays afe and al arm , but th e Af r i c a n Am e r i c a n e mp l o y e e wh o d i d r e q u e s tth e m r e c e i v e d th e c o mb i n a t i o n s . On app eal , G i l m ore doe s not di spute these findi ng s. A ccor di ng t o t he D i s tr i ctC our t , G i l m or e’ s depos i t i on t es t i m onyi ndi cat ed that , w hen 5 s he i nform ed herm anage rthata l es s s eni orempl oy ee ha d been gi ven G i l m or e’ s pr efe r r ed

F i r s t , th e Di s tr i c tCo u r td i s p o s e d o f Gi l mo r e ’ s “ f

a i l u r e t o p r o mo t e ” c l a i m, w hi ch w as bas ed upon M acy ’ s s el ect i on of J eanne t t e R ut t erfora pos i t i on i n the D i amond B ay . U nderthe bur den- s hi ft i ng fr amew or k s etfor th i n M cD onnel l D ougl as C orp. v. G r een, 411 U . S. 792, 802 ( 1973) , G i l m or e w as r equi r ed t o es t abl i s h a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e by evi dence , among ot herthi ngs , thatthe per s on w ho fi l l ed the des i r ed pos i t i on had e q u iv a len t o r le ss e r q u a lific a tio n s. S e e a lso S c h e id e m a n tle v . S lip p e ryR o c k U n iv . S tate S y s. o f H igh er E d u c., 4 7 0 F . 3 d 5 3 5 , 5 4 1 -42 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). T h e D istri ct C o u rt det erm i ned ther e w as no genui ne di s put e thatR utt erw as s i gni fi cant l ym or e qual i fi ed than G i l m or e. G i l m or e does notcont es tthi s concl us i on, and w e agr ee thats um m aryj udgm ent w as appr opr i at e.

N ext , the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enton al l butone of Gi l mo r e ’ s d i s p a r a t e tr e a t me n tc l a i ms b e c a u s e s h e c o u l d n o tma k e th e n e c e s s a ryp r i ma f a c ie s h o w in g th a t “ n o n m e m b e rs o f th e p ro te c te d c la s s w e re tr e a te d m o re f a v o ra b ly.” 4 A b ra m s o n v . W illia m P a te rs o n C o ll. o f N .J ., 2 6 0 F .3 d 2 6 5 , 2 8 1 -8 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). G i l m or e cont ends the D i s tr i ctC our tr eac hed “mosti nacc ur at e” f i ndi ngs on hercl ai m t hat s he w as unfai r l ydeni ed s chedul i ng pr efe r ence . G i l m or e ci t es no evi dence s uppor t i ng her 5s chedul e ( i . e. , M onday s off) , the managerr es ponded t o G i l m or e’ s r eques t . ( See D ocket

N o. 40 at23. ) G i l m or e conc edes thats he ul t i m at el yr ece i ved M onday s off, butar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tm i s char act er i zed he rt es t i m onybeca us e herm anage rgr ant ed the r eques tonl yaft ers ever al w hi t e empl oy ees ( s om e l es s s eni orthan G i l m or e) r ece i ved M onday s off. T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o concl uded thatG i l m or e di d notpr ovi de evi dence of 6 del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence t o “es peci al l yegr egi ous ” conduc t , as r equi r ed forpuni t i ve damages underN ew J er s ey ’ s L aw A gai ns tD i s cr i m i nat i on. See R endi ne v. Pant zer , 661 A . 2 d 1 2 0 2 , 1 2 1 5 (N . J. 1 9 9 5 ). Si m i l ar l y , t o the ext entG i l m or e ar gues thatM acy ’ s i m pr oper l yw i thhel d other 7 em p loy ee rec o rds, th e re co rd d o es n o t r ef lect th at sh e ra ised an yd isco v eryd ispu te be fo re th e D istric t C o u rt. cont ent i on and, not abl y , has “ac know l edged thatan as s oci at e maynothave gua r ant eed day s off. ” ( See D ocketN o. 27 at18. ) W e ar e notper s uaded of the exi s t ence of a ma t e r i a l d i s p u t e o f

f a c twa r r a n t i n g a tr i a l o n th i s c l a i m. Fi nal l y , the D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded G i l m or e w as notent i t l ed t o pur s ue p u n it ive d am ag es, be ca u se sh e p rov ided n o ev iden ce all o w ing an inf ere n ce that M ac y ’s act ed w i th m al i ce orr eckl es s i ndi ffe r ence t o herr i ght s . See K ol s t ad v. A m . D ent al 6 A s s ’ n, 527 U . S. 526, 534 ( 1999) . I n r es pons e, G i l m or e cl ai m s M acy ’ s r efus ed t o pr oduce a copyof herempl oy ee f i l e, w hi ch w oul d s uppor theral l egat i ons conce rni ng the number o f tim e s s h e c o n su lted m a n a g e m e n t ab o u t th e in f rin g e m e n t o f

h e r rig h ts. W h ile a d e q u a te di s coveryi s nece s s arypr i ort o a s um m aryj udgm entaw ar d, s ee Cel ot ex C orp. , 477 U . S. at 3 2 2 ; F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (f ), th e re c o rd d o e s n o t re f lec t th a t G ilm o re e v e r p re v io u sly cl ai m ed s he had i nadequa t e ac ces s t o di s covery . M or eover , i tappea r s thatthe empl oy ee 7 fi l e w oul d be cumul at i ve of G i l m or e’ s t es t i m onyabouthereff or t s t o i nform m anage m ent a b o u t th e a lleg e d d isc rim in a tio n . W e w ill n o t d istu rb th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e c isio n o n th isT he D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded thataddi ng new cl ai m s on the eve of tr i al w oul d be 8 p re ju d icia l to M a c y ’s a n d th a t, be c a u se G ilm o re h a d b e e n a w a re o f th e u n d e rly in g f

a c ts f o rs e v e r a l mo n th s , th e mo t i o n a p p e a r e d t o b e t a c t i c a l . Ba s e d u p o n th e s e f i n d i n g s , we w oul d aff

i r m the or dereven i f the D i s tr i ctC our thad cons i der ed the mot i on underthe m or e l i ber al amendm entpr ovi s i ons of Fed. R . C i v. P. 15( a) . See I n r e B ur l i ngt on C oat F ac toryS ec . L it ig., 1 1 4 F . 3 d 1 4 1 0 , 1 4 3 4 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) (dil atorym o ti v e a n d p rejud ice a re a m o n g th e g ro u n d s ju s tif y in g d e n ia l o f

le a v e to a m e n d ). T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed M acy ’ s perm i s s i on t o depos e G i l m or e on the pr opos ed 9 new cl ai m s , “w i thoutpr ej udi ce t o ei therparty ’ s pos i t i on on Pl ai nt i ff’ s m ot i on t o amend. ” O n ap p ea l, G il m o re c lai m s sh e sh o u ld n o t hav e b ee n d ep o sed a se co n d ti m e. H o w ev er, part i cul ar l yi n l i ghtof the l at e dat e on w hi ch s he fi l ed herm ot i on t o amend, w e fi nd no ab u se o f d iscreti o n in the D istri ct C o u rt ’s de cisi o n to p erm itM ac y ’s t o ex p lore G il m o re’s p ro p o se d n e w c laim s p rio r to th e sc h e d u led trial d a te, d e sp ite th e u lti m a te d e c isio n n o t to perm i tamendm ent . Forthe s ame r eas on, w e fi nd no abus e of di s cr et i on i n the D i s tr i ct d e c is io n o rd e ri n g G ilm o re to p a yth e c o s t o f th e s e c o n d d e p o s itio n . b a s is . B.

N ext , G i l m or e cont es t s the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s J anuary20, 2009 or derdeny i ng h e r m o tio n to a m e n d th e c o m p lain t. T h e D istric t C o u rt c o n stru e d th e m o tio n a s o n e to a m e n d th e p re -tria l o rd e r u n d e r F e d . R . C iv . P . 1 6 (e ), w h ich p e rm its a m e n d m e n t “o n lyto pr eventm ani fes ti nj us t i ce. ” W e r evi ew or der s deny i ng amendm entforabus e of di s cr et i on. See C averv. C i tyof Tre nt on, 420 F. 3d 243, 260 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . W e conc l ude the D i s tr i ctC our tact ed w i thi n i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng l eave t o amend t he pr e- tr i al or der . See i d. ; s ee a l s o T hom as v. E . J . K or vett e, I nc. , 476 F. 2d 471, 476 ( 3d C i r . 1973)

8 ( appel l at e i nt er fer ence w i th the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s cr et i on conce rni ng amendm entof the p re -tria l o rd e r sh o u ld b e k e p t to a m in im u m ). G ilm o re ’s c laim th e re f o re lac k s m e rit. 9See 28 U . S. C . § 1861 ets eq. ; J . E . B . v. A l abama ex r el . T . B . , 511 U . S. 127, 128- 29 10 ( 1994) ( l i t i gant s have a n equal pr ot ect i on r i ghtt o j urys el ect i on pr ocedur es fr ee f r om di s cr i m i nat i on) ; T ay l orv. L oui s i ana, 419 U . S. 522, 538 ( 1975) ( l i t i gant s ar e notent i t l ed to ju ri e s o f

a p a rt ic u la r c o m p o s itio n ). C. G i l m or e cl ai m s the D i s tr i ctC our ti s s ued s ever al err oneous rul i ngs dur i ng tr i al . W e cons i dereac h of hercl ai m s i n turn. I. Fi r s t , G i l m or e cl ai m s err orbas ed upon the composi t i on of the j ury , s t at i ng sh e “ c o u ld n o t u n d e rsta n d w h yth e re w e re so m a n ytea c h e rs o n th e ju ry , w h e n I m y se lf had al r eadyhad s o m anyt el evi s ed oppos i t i ons t o t eac her s and t eac herr el at ed i s s ues as t he p reside n t and v ice p reside n t of the P are n t A d v isoryC o u n sel. ” (In fo rm al B ri ef at 4.) A c h a llen g e to th e c o m p o sitio n o f th e ju rym u st b e m a d e c o n tem p o ra n e o u sly , o r it is w ai ved. See A bu- J amal v. H orn, 520 F. 3d 272, 284 ( 3d C i r . 2008) , vaca t ed on other gr ounds s ub nom . B ear d v. A bu- J amal , 130 S. C t . 1134 ( 2010) ; s ee a l s o M cC r oryv. H ender s on, 82 F. 3d 1243, 1249 ( 2d C i r . 1996) . I tdoes notappea rthatG i l m or e r ai s ed s uch an obj ect i on. I n anyevent , G i l m or e has notpr ovi ded a ba s i s forconcl udi ng thatt he pr es ence of t eac her s on the j urycaus ed i t s composi t i on t o be uncons t i tut i onal or u n r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f

a f a i rc r o s s - s e c t i o n o f

h e rc o m m u n i ty. 10 ii. G ilm o re n e x t co n ten d s th e D istric t C o u rt im p ro p e rlye x c lu d e d c e rta in w i tnes s es fr om t es t i fy i ng attr i al . G i l m or e has nots peci fi cal l yi dent i fi ed anyw i tnes s s heT he D i s tr i ctC our ti ns truct ed the j ury : “Pl ai nt i ff a l l eges thatM acy ’ s deni ed hert he 11 s ame oppor tuni tyt o w or k atthe D i amond B ayas herw hi t e col l eague s . . . , and thats uch d e n ial w a s b a se d u p o n h e r ra c e .” (D o c k e t N o . 1 1 6 a t 1 7 .) G ilm o re ’s c o u n se l sp e c if ica lly ag ree d to the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ph rasing o f th is i n stru cti o n . (S ee D o ck et N o . 1 5 5 at 65 . ) w i s hed t o pr es ent , and has notpr ovi ded anyr el evantD i s tr i ctC our trul i ng. I n att empt i ng t o r es pond t o G i l m or e’ s cl ai m , M acy ’ s di r ect s ouratt ent i on t o a benc h rul i ng i n w hi ch the D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded, aft erw i tnes s pr offe r s byG i l m or e’ s couns el and ar gum entby b o th p a rt ie s , th a t f

iv e o f G ilm o re ’s p ro p o s e d w itn e s s e s s h o u ld n o t b e p e rm itte d to te s tif y . ( S. A . 274- 83. ) W e fi nd no abus e of di s cr et i on i n the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng and, i n any e v e n t , th e ru l i n g d o e s n o tp r o v i d e g r o u n d s f o rd i s tu rb i n g th e j u ry ’ s v e r d i c t . S e e Ab r a ms v . L igh toli er In c., 5 0 F . 3 d 1 2 0 4 , 1 2 1 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). iii . F inally , G il m o re c lai m s the D istri ct C o u rtissue d an erro n eo u s jury in stru c tio n . S h e sta tes , “J u d g e S im a n d le c h a n g e d th e w o rd s p re se n ted to th e ju ro rs to s t at e thatJ ani ce G i l m or e di d notr ece i ve a FA I R O PPO R T U N I T Y t o fi l l i n atthe di amond w al l i n the abs ence of a di amond w al l as s oci at e i ns t ead of the or i gi nal J ani ce G i l m or e di d notr ece i ve an EQ U A L O PPO R T U N I T Y . ” ( I nform al B r i ef a t2. ) W e have re v iew e d th e ju ryc h a rg e a n d q u e stio n n a ire , an d f in d th a t G ilm o re ’s c laim lac k s s u p p o rt. 11 M or eover , s o l ong as the j uryi ns truct i ons pr ovi de an a ccur at e and f ai rs t at ementof the l aw , the tr i al j udge has di s cr et i on as t o the s ty l e and w or di ng empl oy ed. D ougl as v. O w e n s, 5 0 F .3 d 1 2 2 6 , 1 2 3 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 5 ). T h e D istric t C o u rt p ro v id e d a re a so n a b le s t at ementof the l aw and G i l m or e has offe r ed no bas i s forconcl udi ng otherw i s e.G il m o re a lso c o m p lai n s tha t a j u ror f ell aslee p at tri al. (Inf

o rm al B ri ef

at 3.) 12 H ow ever , s he has pr ovi ded nothi ng t o r efl ectthatthe D i s tr i ctC our tw as m ade a w ar e of th e ju ro r’s a lleg e d in a tten tiv e n e ss a n d , b a se d u p o n o u r re v iew , the iss u e is n o t ap p a re n t in the r ecor d. G i l m or e’ s uns ubs t ant i at ed cl ai m i s nota s uffi ci entbas i s fordi s turbi ng the ju ry ’s v e rd ict. A partym aypr es enta cl ai m thata j ury ’ s ver di ctw as agai ns tthe w ei ghtof the 13 evi dence by( 1) fi l i ng a mot i on forj udgm entas a mat t erof l aw atthe cl os e of e vi dence fol l ow ed bya r enew ed mot i on aft ertr i al , Fed. R . C i v. P. 50; and/ or( 2) fi l i ng a mot i on for a new tr i al aft erthe j uryr eturns i t s ver di ct , Fed. R . C i v. P. 59. D. G i l m or e cl ai m s thatthe “f act s do nots uppor tj ury ’ s ver di ct . ” N ot abl y , t he 12 r ecor d does notr efl ectthatG i l m or e pr es erved a c l ai m thatthe ver di ctw as agai ns tthe w e ig h t o f

th e e v id e n c e b yp re s e n tin g it to th e D is tr ic t C o u rt . S e e U n ith e rm F o o d S y s ., 13 I nc. v. Sw i ft - E ckr i ch, I nc. , 546 U . S. 394, 404- 05 ( 2006) ; Y ohannon v. K eene C orp. , 924 F .2 d 1 2 5 5 , 1 2 6 2 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 1 ). M o re o v e r, a n e w trial m a yb e g ra n ted o n th e b a sis th a t a v e rd ict w a s a g a in st th e w e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e o n lyif

a m isc a rria g e o f

ju stic e w o u ld occuri f the ver di ctw er e t o s t and. See Fi neman v. A r m s tr ong W or l d I ndus . , I nc. , 980 F. 2d 171, 211 ( 3d C i r . 1992) . G i l m or e has notes t abl i s hed thatthe ver di ctr es ul t s i n a m isc a rria g e o f

ju stic e . S h e a rg u e s o n lyth a t w itn e ss e s te stif ied u n tru th f

u llya n d th a t th e ir dep osi t i on t est i m on ycon fl i ct ed w i th thei r tri al t est i m on y . E valuat i on of w i tness credi bil i tyi s partof the j ury ’s rol e as fact fi nd er. S heri dan v. E . I. du P on tde N em ou rs & C o. , 100 F. 3d 1061, 1072 ( 3d C i r . 1996) . T he r ecor d r efl ect s thatG i l m or e’ s couns el had the opportuni tyt o cr os s - exami ne M acy ’ s w i tnes s es . T he j uryw as fr ee t o as s es s the c re d ib ility o f

th e w itn e s s e s a n d to b e lie v e o r d is b e lie v e th e f a c ts p re s e n te d b ye a c h s id e .S p ec ifi ca ll y , G il m o re a rgu es sh e sh o u ld n o t be tax ed fo r th e c o st of d ep o sing S h erry 14 M cC or d, on the gr ound thatM acy ’ s di d notpr ovi de hera copyof i t ; s he obj ect s t o the c o st o f h e r se c o n d d e p o sitio n , o n th e g ro u n d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t allo w h e r to a m e n d h e r c o m p lain t to p u rsu e th e c laim d isc u ss e d in th a t d e p o sitio n ; an d sh e o b jec ts to b e in g c h a rg e d f

o r se rv ice o f

su b p o e n a s u p o n , an d f

o r “ lav ish ” tra n sp o rta tio n a n d m e a ls f o r, f o u r M a c y ’s w itn e s s e s . I n herfi r s tnot i ce of

appea l , G i l m or e purpor t ed t o appea l fr om an or derent er ed 15 February27, 2009, w hi ch part i al l ygr ant ed M acy ’ s m ot i on fors anct i ons and for att orney ’ s fee s and cos t s . T he M agi s tr at e J udge s ubs equent l ys peci fi ed i n an or der ent er ed N ovember13, 2009, thatthe s anct i ons or derappl i es onl yt o G i l m or e’ s form er couns el . B eca us e thes e or der s do notappl yt o G i l m or e di r ect l yand bec aus e s he has r ai s ed no s peci fi c di s put e conc erni ng them, w e w i l l notcons i derthos e or der s her e. E. Fi nal l y , the D i s tr i ctC our tor der ed G i l m or e t o payM acy ’ s cos t s , t ot al i ng $4, 861. 30. G i l m or e obj ect s t o a port i on of thataw ar d. I n gener al , cos t s s houl d be 14 al l ow ed t o a pr evai l i ng party . See Fed. R . C i v. P. 54( d) ( 1) . W e r evi ew the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s or derforabus e of di s cr et i on. See I n r e Paol i R . R . Y ar d PC B L i t i g. , 221 F. 3d 449, 458 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . W e have r evi ew ed G i l m or e’ s cl ai m s and none e s t abl i s hes an ab u se o f d iscreti o n . W e the ref o re w il l aff

irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er. 15 I I I . C oncl us i on W e h av e re v iew ed the re co rd a n d co n clud e tha t no n e o f A p p ell an t’ s r emai ni ng cl ai m s has m er i t . Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof th e D istric t C o u rt. G ilm o re ’s m o tio n f o r le a v e to su b m it a s u p p lem e n tal a p p e n d ix is gr ant ed t o t he ext entthe pr opos ed s uppl ement al appendi x cont ai ns document s appea r i ng in th e D istric t C o u rt re c o rd . W e w ill n o t co n sid e r a n yd o c u m e n ts th a t d o n o t ap p e a r in the D i s tr i ctC our tr ecor d. See Fas s ettv. D el t a K appa Epsi l on ( N ew Y or k) , 807 F. 2d1150, 1165 ( 3d C i r . 1986) ( “The onl ypr operfunct i on of a c our tof appe al s i s t o r evi ew

th e d e c is io n b e lo w o n th e b a s is o f th e re c o rd th a t w a s b e f o re th e d is tr ic t c o u rt .” ).



### 1 2