Opinion ID: 194696
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Harvard Radio Tower Project

Text: A Harvard official testified about Harvard's entry to the BAPERN system. Yefsky then tried to elicit evidence of work he subsequently performed on the Harvard radio tower. The district court excluded the evidence as irrelevant. Yefsky argues that the testimony was admissible as evidence of his good faith as a general business practice. A district court enjoys broad discretion regarding the admissibility of evidence on relevancy grounds. Conway v. Electro Switch Corp., 825 F.2d 593, 597 (1st Cir. 1987). We will reverse a court's decision only upon a showing of manifest abuse of discretion. Id. (citations omitted). Yefsky does not make such a showing. At trial and on appeal, Yefsky concedes that his work on the Harvard radio tower project was not connected to any GBPC or BAPERN contract. Nor was it temporally related to BAPERN, for the project came two -28- years after he completed work on Harvard's entry to BAPERN. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit testimony so tenuously connected to the issues at hand.10