Case Name: Lisa KEENE-MCPETERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COOPER TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Sears Roebuck and Company, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-16
Citations: 303 F. App'x 743
Docket Number: No. 07-15729
Parties: Lisa KEENE-MCPETERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COOPER TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Sears Roebuck and Company, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 303
Pages: 743–744

Head Matter:
Lisa KEENE-MCPETERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COOPER TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Sears Roebuck and Company, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-15729.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Dec. 16, 2008.
Lee D. Gunn, IV, Scott A. Arthur, Gunn Law Group, P.A., Tracy Raffles Gunn, Gunn Appellate Practice, PA., Tampa, F.L., for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Frederick J. Fein, Thornton Davis & Fein, Miami, F.L., Kathleen Mary O’Con-nor, Thornton, Davis & Fein, P.A., Palmetto Bay, F.L., for Defendants-Appellees.
Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, and COHILL, District Judge.
Honorable Maurice B. Cohill, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
After oral argument and careful consideration, we conclude that the judgment of the district court is due to be affirmed. We readily conclude that the evidence amply justified the jury instruction submitting to the jury the issue of the government standard defense. The express language of the federal standard indicates that it was designed to prevent the type of harm that allegedly occurred — i.e., tread separation. Moreover, the express language of the federal standard indicates that it was intended to apply as well to radial tires. We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to admit into evidence the 2002 bulletin concerning the federal standard and the 2007 revision thereof.
We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion with respect to the scope of discovery. With respect to the district court's decision declining to admit into evidence the "adjustment data," we conclude that the plaintiff did not preserve that issue for appeal. Alternatively, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion.
Other arguments raised on appeal are rejected without need for further discussion. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.