T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT U N I TED I N V ESTO RS LI FE I NS UR AN C E C OMP AN Y, P la in tif

f - c r o s s - d e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t, v. D O N N A G R A N T . i nd i vi du al l y and as a d m i n i s tr a t o ro f

th e E s t a t e o f

Ge o r g e H. G r a n t, D e f

e n d a n t - c r o s s - c la im a n t - A pp el l ee , a nd HELE N FAU ER BACH; J I M GRAN T; KENN Y G RANT; BR AN DO N G RANT; S O L A N A C O U N T Y S H E R IF F ’S OFFI CE , D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 08- 17336 D. C. No . 2 : 0 5 - c v - 0 1 7 1 6 - M CE DA D ME MOR AN DU M * 

# FI LED JU L 08 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). 2 U N I TED I N V ESTO RS LI FE I NS UR AN C E C OMP AN Y, P la in tif

f - c r o s s - d e f

e n d a n t - A pp el l ee , v. D O N N A G R A N T , i nd i vi du al l y and as a d m i n i s tr a t o ro f

th e E s t a t e o f

Ge o r g e H. G r a n t, D e f

e n d a n t- c r o s s - c la im a n t - A p p e lla n t, a nd HELE N FAU ER BACH; J I M GRAN T; KENN Y G RANT; BR AN DO N G RANT; S O L A N O C O U N T Y S H E R IF F ’S DEPART M ENT, D efen d an t s. N o. 08- 17365 D. C. No . 2 : 0 5 - c v - 0 1 7 1 6 - M CE DA D

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia M orr i s on C . E ngl a nd, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 9, 2010 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , H A W K IN S an d T H O M A S , C i rcu i tJu d g es.W e r e vi e w adi s tr i c tc our t ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on of the F e de r a l R ul e s of 1 C i vi l P roce du re de no vo . U ni ted Stat es v. 2, 16 4 W

atches , 3 6 6 F .3 d 7 6 7 , 7 7 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . W e r e v ie w f in d in g s o f

f a c t f o rc le a re rr o r . H

usai n v. O l

ym pi c A i rw ays , 3 1 6 F .3 d 8 2 9 , 8 3 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) , af f’d , 5 4 0 U .S . 6 4 4 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . 3 U ni t ed Invest ors L i fe Insura nce C om pany (“ U ni t ed”) appeal s aj ury aw ar d of $1, 060, 000 f

orvi ol a t i on of

i t s duty of

good f a i th a nd f

a i rde a l i ng t o D onna G ran t , th e n am ed b en efi ci ary o n h er l at e h u sb an d ’ s l i fe i n su ran ce p o l i cy. M s. G r a ntc r os s appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof j udgm e nti n i nt e rpl e a de ra nd gr a nt o f su m m ary j u d g m en tt o U n i t ed o n th e i ssu e o f p u n i t i v e d am ag es. S h e al so c h a lle n g e s tw o e v id e n tia ry ru lin g s . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e red u ce th e d am ag es aw ard t o $ 8 0 , 0 0 0 an d affi rm i n al l o th er resp ect s. I T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt h a d 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 2 d iv e r s ity ju r is d ic tio n a n d p r o p e r ly p erm i tt ed th e i n su ran ce co m p an y t o d i sch arg e i t s co n tractu al o b l i g at i o n t o M s. G rantby fi l i ng a R ul e 22 i nt erpl ea der a ct i on agai nsther a nd se vera l other pot ent i al c la im a n ts to th e lif

e in s u r a n c e p o lic y a n d d e p o s itin g f u n d s w ith th e c o u r t. B y its 1 la n g u a g e , R u le 2 2 ap p lie s to s itu a tio n s th a t “ m ay e xpos e apl a i nt i f f t o doubl e or m u ltip le liab ility .” F e d . R . C iv . P . 2 2 ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . C f. Mi n n . Mu t . L i

f e In s. C o. v. E nsley , 17 4 F . 3d 97 7, 98 1 (9th C i r. 19 99 ) ( “ T he court ’ s j uri sdi ct i on un der th e in te rp le a d e rs ta tu te e x te n d s to p o te n tia l, a s w e ll a s a c tu a l, c la im s .” ) . C a lif o rn iaI n L i bby, McN e i l l , & L i bby v . C i t

y N at ’ l B ank , 59 2 F . 2d 50 4 (9th C i r. 2 1 9 7 8 ), p o t en t i al cl ai m an t s j o i n ed as d efen d an t s actu al l y dis c lai m e d a ny r i ghtt o the fu n d an d assert ed i n d ep en d en tco u n t er cl ai m s ag ai n stth e p l ai n t i ff— co u n t er cl ai m s, thi s C ou rtdeci ded, ov erw hi ch the i nt erpl ea der s t atut e di d n otconfer subj ec tm att er ju r is d ic tio n . I

d. a t 5 0 7

– 0 8 . L i bb

y i s notr e l e va ntt o thi s c a s e , a s i tpr e s e nt e d both a d if f e r e n t f a c tu a l s c e n a r io a n d ad if f e r e n t le g a l q u e s tio n . T h i s co u rtrev i ew s de nov o adi s tr i c tc our t ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha tthe 3 f a c ts o f ac a s e d o n o t ju s tif

yp u n itiv e d a m a g e s . See EE O Cv. W a l-M a rt S to res, Inc. , 156 F . 3d 989, 992 ( 9th C i r . 1998) ( c i t i ng Knapp v . E agle P r op. M gm t . C or p. , 54 F . 3d 12 72 , 12 81 (7th C i r. 19 95 )) . 4 l aw re qu i re s l i fe i nsurance proce eds t o b e pai d “ as tho ug h the ki l l erhad predece as ed the decedent , ” C al . P rob. C od e § 25 2, m eani ng thati f M s. G rantw er e det erm i ned t o h ave m urdered her husband, U ni t ed coul d rem ai n l i abl e on the l i fe in su ra n ce p o li cy ev en if ith ad alre ad y p aid h er . B ec au se o f M s. G ra n t’ s i nde pe nde nti nve s t i ga t i on a nd he rl e tt e rt o the c om pa ny , U ni t e d kne w e nough d e ta ils ab o u t th e c a s e b y th e tim e it f ile d ac o m p la in t in in te rp le a d e rto ju s tif y its fear o f m u l t i p l e l i ab i l i ty. 2 II P u n i t i v e d a m a g e s a r e n o tap p r o p r i a t e i n th i s c a s e . Un d e rC a l i f o rn i al a w, 3 puni t i ve ore xe m pl a ry da m a ge s m a y be a w a r de d onl y i f the pl a i nt i f

f pr ove s by c l e a ra nd c onvi nc i ng e vi de nc e tha tthe de f e nda ntc om m i tt e d at or tw i th oppr e s s i on, f r aud, orm a l i c e . C a l . C i v. C ode § 3294( a ) . C a l i f orni al a w “ doe s notf

a vor pu ni t i ve dam ages and they s ho ul d b e gra nt ed w i th the great es tcaut i on . ” B ec k v .N one of f a c t or s c i t e d i n H

a n g a rter v. P ro vi den t

L i f e & A cci den t

In s. 4 C o. , 373 F . 3d 998 ( 9th C i r . 2004) , a s s uppor t i ng puni t i ve da m a ge s i s r e l e va nt g iv e n th e f

a c ts o f th is c a s e . Se e i d. a t1013–14. 5 State Farm Mut . A uto. I ns . C o. , 5 4 C al . A p p . 3 d 3 4 7 , 3 5 5 (1 9 7 6 ). R eg ard l ess w hi c h of the thr e e the or i e s the pl a i nt i f f r e l i e s on t o c l a i m puni t i ve da m a ge s , s he m us ts how tha tthe de f

e nda nta c t e d w i th i nt e ntorw i th c ons c i ous di s r e ga r d f orthe p la in tif f’s r ig h ts . See C a l . C i v. C ode § 3294( c ) ( de f i ni ng oppr e s s i on, f

r aud, a nd m a l i c e ) . “ P r oof

of avi ol a t i on of

the duty of

good f a i th a nd f

a i rde a l i ng doe s not es t abl i sh thatthe defendantac t ed w i th the re qu i si t e i nt entt o i nj ure the pl ai nt i ff . ” B ec k , 54 C a l . A pp. 3d a t355 . M s. G rantpres ent ed no evi dence thatU ni t ed i nt e nde d t o i nj ur e he rora ny one e l s e , orothe rw i s e a c t e d w i th the r e qui s i t e l e ve l of cul pabi l i ty t o j ust i fya pun i t i ve dam ages aw ar d. E ven i f M s. G ranthad p roven e ve ry thi ng tha ts he s e toutt o pr ove , i ts i m pl y w oul d notha ve be e n “ c l e a ra nd c onvi nc i ng e vi de nc e ” tha tU ni t e d vi ol a t e d i t s duty of good f a i th a nd f

a i rde a l i ng w ith “o p p r e s s io n , f

r au d , o rm a lic e .” 4A d is tr ic t c o u rt’s in te rp r e ta tio n o f s ta te la w in ad iv e r s ity c a s e is 5 r e vi e w e d de no vo . S ta te Fa rm Mu t. A u to . I n s . C o . v . D a v is , 937 F . 2d 1415, 1418 (9th C i r. 19 91 ). A j ury’ s ver di ctm ustbe up hel d i f s up po rt ed by “ subst ant i al e v id e n c e , w h ic h is e v id e n c e a d e q u a te to s u p p o r t th e ju ry ’s c o n c lu s io n , e v e n if it is al so po ss i bl e t o d raw a c on traryconcl usi on . ” H arper v . C i t

y of L os A ng eles , 533 F . 3d 10 10 , 10 21 (9th C i r. 20 08 ) ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed). 6 II I M s . G r a nt ’ s the ory of

l i abi l i ty w a s l e ga l l y a nd f a c tua l l y s ound. 5 A M s . G r a nt ’ s the ory of

l i abi l i ty i s s uppor t e d by C a l i f orni al a w . S he di d not a s s e r t, n o rd id th e d is tr ic t c o u rt r e ly o n , th e e x is te n c e o f ad u ty to in te rp le a d . R a th e r , h e ra c tio n w a s f o rv io la tio n o f

th e in s u r a n c e c o m p a n y ’s d u ty o f g o o d f a ith and fai r dea l i ng i n h ow i tproces se d h ercl ai m . Itre st ed on the prem i se thatU ni t ed ha d aduty t o pr oc e s s the c l a i m i n ar e a s onabl e m a nne r— U ni t e d m e r e l y ha d the opt i on of f i l i ng a n i nt e rpl e a de ra c t i on e a r l i e r , w hi c h, i f i tha d abonaf

i de f e a rof m ul t i pl e l i abi l i ty a tthe t i m e , w oul d ha ve be e n ar e a s onabl e w a y t o pr oc e s s the c la im . Se e Sc hw ar t

zv . State Farm Fi r e & Cas . C o. , 88 C a l . A pp. 4th 1329, 1341 ( 2 0 0 1 ) . W here the i nsurerul t i m at el y has an ob l i gat i on t o p ay , and i tdo es pay e ve ntua l l y buti n a n unr e a s onabl y unt i m e l y m a nne r , C a l i f orni al a w pe rm i t s the in s u r e d to p u r s u e a n a c tio n f o rb a d f a ith . T h e c au s e o f

a c tio n is n o t lim ite d to7

i ns ur e r s w ho ha ve w r ongf ul l y de ni e d c ove r a ge , bute xt e nds t o “ the ha ndl i ng of the in s u r e d ’s c la im [ s ]” m o r e g e n e r a lly . Ch a te a u Ch a m b e r a y H o m e o w n e rs A s s ’ n v . A s s oc i ate d I

nt ’ l I ns . C o. , 90 C al . A pp . 4th 3 35 , 34 6 (20 01 ). T ort i ou s c on du ctcan co n si sto f “ d el ay o r d e n ia l in th e p a y m e n t o f p o lic y b e n e f

its ,” a s lo n g a s it is

“ s how n tha tthe i ns ur e ra c t e d un re ason ab l y or w i th o u t

p ro p er ca u se . ” I

d. a t347 ( f ir s t e m p h a s is a d d e d ) ; s e e al s o E gan v . Mut . of

O m aha I

ns . C o. , 620 P . 2d 141, 14 5 (C al . 19 79 ). B T h e q u e s tio n o f

liab ility w a s p r o p e r lyp r e s e n te d to th e ju ry . U n ite d is c o rr e c t th a t ac o u rt m ay f i nd al i m i t e d i nve s t i ga t i on orpa y m e ntbe l ow the a m ount d u e r e a s o n ab le a s am a tte ro f la w . See B ri nder

son-N ew berg Joi ntV

enture v . P ac. E re ctors, Inc. , 97 1 F . 2d 27 2, 28 2– 83 (9th C i r. 19 92 ) ( i nt erpret i ng C al i forni a l aw ); Chate au , 9 0 C al. A p p . 4 th at 3 4 0 . H o w ev er , “ th e r ea so n ab len es s o f a n in su re r’s cl ai m s- hand l i ng cond ucti s ordi nari l y aqu es t i on of fa ct . ” Chate au , 90 C a l . A pp. 4 th a t 3 4 6 ; s e e al

s o Fr ale y v . A l l s tate I ns . C o. , 81 C al . A pp . 4th 1 28 2, 12 93 (200 0). H e r e , U n ite d d id n o t d is p u te c o v e r a g e , it ju s t w o rr ie d ab o u t d o u b le liab ility . M s. G rantproffe re d evi dence thatU ni t ed coul d h ave deal tw i th thatconcern m uch m ore qui ckl y, ei ther throu gh i nv es t i gat i on or by fi l i ng an ac t i on i n i nt erpl ea der earl i er . S he proffer ed evi dence thatU ni t ed vi ol at ed bo th i t s ow n u nw ri tt en po l i ci es8

an d C alifo rn ia law , m ak in g it s c o n d u ct u n re as o n ab le. C o n trar y to U n it ed ’s a s s e r t i ons , f

i l i ng a n i nt e rpl e a de ra c t i on f i f t e e n m onths a f

t e rr e c e i vi ng ac l a i m a nd a f t e rm i ni m a l , pr o f

orm ai nve s t i ga t i on, w he r e the be ne f i c i a ry w a s ne ve ra rr e s t e d, w a s n o t r e a s o n ab le a s am a tte ro f la w . Se e Min n . Mu t. , 1 7 4 F .3 d a t 9 8 0

– 8 1 ; se e al s o R . J . Kuhl C or p. v . Sul l i v an , 1 3 C a l. A p p . 4 th 1 5 8 9 , 1 6 0 2 ( 1 9 9 3 ) ( “[ B ]a d f a ith m aybe ov ertor m ayconsi stof i nact i on , and fai r dea l i ng m ayre qu i re m ore than h o n e s ty .” ) . B ut

c f . L e e v . Cr us ade rI

ns . C o. , 49 C a l . A pp. 4th 1750, 1759 ( 1996) ( f i ndi ng, a s am a tt e rof

l a w , a n i ns ur a nc e c om pa ny ’ s c onduc tr e a s onabl e , i n l a r ge pa r tbe c aus e the c l a i m i ng pa rty w a s a rr e s t e d) .W e r evi ew a dam ages aw ar d for subst ant i al evi dence. “ T he evi dence 6 i s i ns uf f i c i e ntt o s uppor tada m a ge a w a r d onl y w he n no r e a s onabl e i nt e rpr e t a t i on of the re cord supp ort s the fi gu re . ” T o s c a n o v . G r e e n e Mu s ic , 1 2 4 C a l. A p p . 4 th 685, 691 ( 2004) . U nc e rt a i nty a s t o the f a c tof da m a ge s i s f

a t a l t o r e c ove ry , though pl a i nt i f f s a r e gi ve n m or e l e e w a y w he n a tt e m pt i ng t o a s c e r t a i n the a m ountof d a m a g e s . GH

K A ss ocs. v. M

ayerG roup , Inc. , 22 4 C al . A pp . 3d 85 6, 87 3 (19 90 ). U n i t ed arg u es th ati ti s o b j ect i n g t o a p art i cu l ar m easu re o f d am ag es as a m att erof l aw . T hi s i s i ncorrec t . U ni t ed i s notar gu i ng , for e xam pl e, that c om pe ns a t i on f

orl os tbus i ne s s ore m ot i ona l di s tr e s s i s una va i l abl e i n thi s type of a c t i on ( ac l a i m tha ti n a ny e ve ntw oul d be f or e c l os e d by C a l i f

orni ac a s e l a w ) , but r a th e rth a t M s . G r a n t p r e s e n te d in s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e o f

p r o x im a te c au s a tio n to s uppor tthe f

i gur e a w a r de d. 9 IV B ec au se M s. G ra n t m ay o n ly co ll ec t d am ag es ca u se d b y U n it ed In v es to r’s ba d f a i th, w e r e duc e the j ury a w a r d t o $20, 000 i n e c onom i c da m a ge s a nd $60, 000 i n n o n -eco n o m i c d am ag es. 6 In i nsurance c as es , the m ea sure of dam ages for bre ac h o f the i m pl i ed c ove na ntof

good f a i th a nd f

a i rde a l i ng i s “ the a m ountw hi c h w i l l c om pe ns a t e f or al l the detri m entprox i m at el y c ause d there by, w hether i tcoul d h ave been a n tic ip a te d o rn o t.” C a l. C iv . C o d e § 3 3 3 3 .; s e e al s o C ate s C ons tr . , I

nc . v . T albot P a rtn ers , 21 C a l . 4th 28, 43 ( 1999) ( e xpl a i ni ng tha ti ns ur a nc e pol i c y c a s e s a r e the exce pt i on t o the general rul e thatcom pensat i on for bre ac h i s l i m i t ed t o con tra ct r e m e di e s ) . D a m a ge s f

ore m ot i ona l di s tr e s s a r e a va i l abl e t o c om pe ns a t e f or“ the a nxi e ty a r i s i ng f

r om the f i na nc i a l de pr i va t i on tr a c e abl e di r e c t l y t o nonpa y m e ntof10

the cl ai m . ” B lake v . A e tna L i f e I ns . C o. , 99 C al . A pp . 3d 90 1, 92 5 (19 79 ). M uc h of the e c onom i c da m a ge s M s . G r a ntc l a i m s a r e r e l a t e d t o bus i ne s s a nd pers on al deci si on s thatshe m ade duri ng the t i m e per i od betw ee n the death o f her hu sband and U ni t ed’ s f

i l i ng i n i nt erpl ea der. W e w i l l as sum e thather te s tim o n y— th a t th e in s u r a n c e c o m p a n y m is le d h e rin to th in k in g th a t s h e c o u ld af ford t o m ai nt ai n h erhu sband’ s busi ness and p urchas e an exp ensi ve new h o m e — is s u f

f ic ie n t e v id e n c e th a t U n ite d ’s b a d f a ith p r o x im a te ly c au s e d h e rto m a ke the s e de c i s i ons . E ve n s o, M s . G r a ntf a i l e d t o pr e s e nte vi de nc e tha tthe i ns ur a nc e c om pa ny ’ s ba d f a i th c aus e d a ny a c tua l e c onom i c l os s e s . M s . G r a nt pres ent ed evi dence thather busi ness profi t s w er e l ow eraf t erher husband di ed than be f or e , a nd tha ts he pa i d c l os i ng c os t s w he n s he boughta nd s ol d pr ope r ty . B uts he f a i l e d t o pr e s e nta ny e vi de nc e tha ts he w oul d ha ve f a r e d b et ter f

i na nc i a l l y i f

s he h a d s o ld th e b u s in e s s w h e n h e rh u s b a n d d ie d o rh a d s h e n o t e n g a g e d in r e a l e s ta te tran sact i o n s. M s . G r a nta l s o a r gue d tha ts he w a s e nt i t l e d t o $200, 000 i n a tt orne y ’ s f e e s f or l i t i gat i ng the i nt erpl ea der a ct i on . Itw as no tac tual l y the fi l i ng of the i nt erpl ea der th atw as i m p ro p er, b u trath er U n i t ed ’ s u n reaso n ab l e d el ay i n p ro cessi n g M s. G ra n t’ s c laim . B ec au se M s. G ra n t d idn o t p re se n t an y e v id en ce th at h eratto rn ey ’s fe es w er e hi gh erbecause of U ni t ed’ s del ay , the re cord do es no tsupp orta j uryT he j ury c oul d a l s o ha ve a s s um e d tha tM s . G r a ntw oul d notha ve 7 ne e de d t o hi r e a n i nve s t i ga t orha d the pol i c y m one y be e n i nt e rpl e d e a r l i e r , s i nc e no o th e rc la im a n t tim e ly r e p lie d to U n ite d ’s c o m p la in t. 11 v e r d ic t f o ra n y p o rtio n o f

th e a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s . Se e B r a n d t v . Su

p e r . C t. , 693 P . 2d 7 9 6 , 7 9 8 ( C a l. 1 9 8 5 ) . T he re cord do es supp ort$2 0, 00 0 i n econo m i c dam ages pl us re l at ed dam ages f o re m o tio n a l d is tr e s s . T h is is th e a m o u n t th a t M s . G r a n t p a id to ap r iv a te in v e s tig a to rto c o n d u c t th e in v e s tig a tio n th a t s h e d e ta ile d in h e rd e m a n d le tte rto th e in s u r a n c e c o m p a n y , w h ic h s h e s e n t o v e ray e ara f te rU n ite d h a d p u t h e rc la im o n h o ld , a n d am e r e tw o m o n th s b e f o r e U n ite d f

ile d its c o m p la in t in in te rp le a d e r . T h e r ec o rd su p p o rts a n in fe re n ce th at sh e h ired th e in v es ti g ato r b ec au se o f U n it ed ’s d e l a y , t o f

o r c e U n i t e d t o p r o c e s s h e rc l a i m. 7 M s. G rantas ked the j ury t o aw ar d n on -e cono m i c dam ages three t i m es her ec on om i c dam ages , w hi ch the j ury di d. D raw i ng al l i nfer ence s i n h erfa vo r, su ffi ci en tev i d en ce ex i st s t o su p p o rta $ 6 0 , 0 0 0 aw ard fo r em o t i o n al d i stress. V T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt d id n o t c o m m it p r e ju d ic ia l e rr o r s r e q u ir in g th is c o u r t to r e m a n d f o ran e w tr ia l o n th e m e r its . U n ite d a r g u e s th a t it w a s d e p r iv e d o f af a ir tr ia l b y M s . G r a n t’s d is r e g a r d o f th e c o u r t’s ru lin g th a t it h a s ar ig h t to in te rp le a d . M s. G rant ’ s a l l eged stra t egy pre j ud i ce d U ni t ed because of the ri sk thatthe j ury12

m ig h t p u n is h th e in s u r e rf o re x e r c is in g its la w f

u l r ig h t to in te rp le a d th e b e n e f its . A tthe cl ose of e vi dence, ho w ever , U ni t ed w i thd re w a r equestfor the D i stri ctC ou rt t o i n stru ctth e j u ry n o tt o co n si d er th e p ro p ri ety o f th e i n t erp l ead er act i o n b ecau se th e c o u r t h a d s u f

f ic ie n tly in s tru c te d th e ju ry a lr e a d y . U n ite d e f f e c tiv e ly w a iv e d its ri gh tt o argue thi s pre

j ud i ce attri al w hen i tw i thd re w on e of i t s propo se d j ury i nstruct i on s w i tho utbei ng prom pt ed, and w hi l e c on ce di ng thatthe j ury w as a de qua t e l y i ns truc t e d not t o c ons i de rthe pr opr i e ty of the i nt e rpl e a de ra c t i on. VI B ec au se w e d o n o t rem an d fo r a n ew trial, w e d ec li n e to ad d re ss M s. G ra n t’ s ch al l en g es t o sev eral o f th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s ev i d en t i ary ru l i n g s.

A FFI R M ED I N PA R T A N D R EVER SED I N PA R T. E a c h p a r ty s h a ll b e a rits o w n c o s ts o n ap p e a l a n d c r o s s - ap p e a l.