Opinion ID: 204041
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Evidentiary Rulings and Jury Instruction

Text: Nihon Kohden raises several claims of error in the district court's evidentiary rulings. We have carefully reviewed Nihon Kohden's contentions and conclude that Nihon Kohden failed to preserve some of its claims, and failed to adequately develop others; as to the remainder, we conclude the district court did not err. Defendants also contend that the district court erred when it instructed the jury on Plant's failure to produce evidence of the commissions he received as a Nihon Kohden employee. The district court gave the following instruction: If you find that Kevin Plant failed to produce documents or information concerning the actual sales that he made on behalf of Nihon Kohden in the state of Florida, you may infer from Kevin Plant's nonproduction that the documents and information are unfavorable to the defense. Defendants did not object to the instruction and they therefore forfeited their right to object on appeal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(c)(2)(B) (stating that a party must object[] promptly after learning that the instruction or request will be, or has been, given or refused); Baron, 402 F.3d at 235. Our interpretation of Rule 51 is quite strict. Connelly v. Hyundai Motor Co., 351 F.3d 535, 544 (1st Cir. 2003). There is a good reason for this strictness. We enforce our object-or-forfeit rule to compel litigants to afford the trial court an opportunity to cure [a] defective instruction and to prevent the litigants from ensuring a new trial in the event of an adverse verdict by covertly relying on the error. Flynn v. AK Peters, Ltd., 377 F.3d 13, 25 (1st Cir. 2004) (alteration in original) (internal quotation omitted). We review defendants' forfeited claim only for plain error. Baron, 402 F.3d at 236. Defendants acknowledge that an adverse inference instruction may be allowed when a party fails to produce a document that exists or should exist and is within its control. See Grajales-Romero v. American Airlines, 194 F.3d 288, 299 (1st Cir. 1999); see also United States v. St. Michael's Credit Union, 880 F.2d 579, 597 (1st Cir. 1989) (stating that [t]he failure of a party to produce available evidence that would help decide an issue may justify an inference that the evidence would be unfavorable to the party to whom it is available). But, they say that such an instruction should not have been given in this case, because there was no evidence that a document relating to Plant's sales as a Nihon Kohden employee existed. Contrary to defendants' claim, Plant testified that his paychecks from Nihon Kohden included a document graphing his Florida sales and commission from these sales. Plant also testified that he had not brought these documents with him to court, because he was not asked to do so. Plant's testimony demonstrates that Nihon Kohden produced a relevant document, and that Plant possessed this document, but had not brought it to court. This testimony properly generated the adverse inference instruction.