Elizabeth Grewal v. Amit Choudhury , 377 F. App'x 617 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELIZABETH GREWAL, No. 08-17483
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:07-cv-04218-CRB
v.
MEMORANDUM *
AMIT CHOUDHURY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 5, 2010 **
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Amit Choudhury appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment,
following a four-day jury trial, in favor of Elizabeth Grewal in her diversity action
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
alleging various claims connected with a promissory note. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding belatedly
produced documents from use at trial. See Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor
Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 2001) (reviewing for an abuse of
discretion the district court’s decision to exclude evidence as a discovery sanction
and explaining that Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 requires the exclusion of evidence unless the
failure to disclose was substantially justified and harmless).
The admission of expert testimony was not plain error because it aided the
jury in calculating damages. See Scott v. Ross, 140 F.3d 1275, 1285 (9th Cir.
1998) (reviewing for plain error the admission of expert testimony where party
fails to renew objection at trial and explaining that Fed. R. Evid. 702 allows for
“testimony that will aid the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or
determining a fact in issue”).
Contrary to Choudhury’s contention, there is no evidence in the record
before us to suggest the jury ignored the instructions to calculate damages
according to a simple interest formula, to disregard a portion of Grewal’s
testimony, or to consider Choudhury’s ability to pay any punitive damages award.
2
See Fineberg v. United States, 393 F.2d 417, 419-20 (9th Cir. 1968) (“The jury is
presumed to have understood and followed the court’s instructions.”).
We do not consider Choudhury’s undeveloped contentions regarding his
post-trial motions. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Issues
raised in a brief which are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”).
Grewal’s request for judicial notice is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3