Opinion ID: 613803
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: .Tenenbaum's Challenges to the Jury Instructions

Text: Tenenbaum challenges the district court's jury instructions on several grounds, all but one of which were not preserved for appeal, and all of which fail. We review preserved challenges to jury instructions de novo, and look to the challenged instructions in relation to the charge as a whole, `asking whether the charge in its entiretyand in the context of the evidencepresented the relevant issues to the jury fairly and adequately.' Kennedy v. Town of Billerica, 617 F.3d 520, 529 (1st Cir.2010) (quoting Goodman v. Bowdoin Coll., 380 F.3d 33, 47 (1st Cir.2004)). Even if the instructions were erroneous, we reverse only if the error is determined to have been prejudicial based on a review of the record as a whole. Mass. Eye & Ear Infirmary v. QLT Phototherapeutics, Inc., 552 F.3d 47, 72 (1st Cir.2009). Absent adequate objections to the instructions, our review is for plain error, which requires that Tenenbaum show (1) that there was error, (2) that it was plain, (3) that it likely altered the outcome, and (4) that it was sufficiently fundamental to threaten the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. Gray v. Genlyte Grp., Inc., 289 F.3d 128, 134 (1st Cir.2002); Estate of Keatinge v. Biddle, 316 F.3d 7, 16 (1st Cir.2002). The standard is high, and `it is rare indeed for a panel to find plain error in a civil case.' Diaz-Fonseca v. Puerto Rico, 451 F.3d 13, 36 (1st Cir.2006) (quoting Chestnut v. City of Lowell, 305 F.3d 18, 20 (1st Cir.2002) (en banc) (per curiam)).